Of Trump and treason

In an obvious (and laudable) attempt to put the psychological squeeze on the electoral college -- which decides our fate within hours -- there have been a flurry of articles accusing Trump of being unfit for office. The video embedded above offers one volley. (Note: I usually embed only YouTube videos, but this one comes from MSNBC. If there are technical problems, such as autoplaying, I'll take it down.)

Also see John Shattuck in the Boston Globe:

A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump. He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a “ridiculous” political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.

There are several possible explanations for Trump’s position. They are not mutually exclusive. First, he may be trying to shore up his political standing before the Electoral College vote on Monday. Second, he may be attempting to undermine the credibility of US intelligence agencies in advance of his taking office so that he can intimidate them and have a freer hand in reshaping the intelligence product to suit his objectives. Third, he may be testing his ability to go over the heads of intelligence professionals and congressional critics and persuade the American public to follow his version of the truth about national security threats. And finally, he may be seeking to cover up evidence of involvement or prior knowledge by members of his campaign team or himself in the Russian cyberattack.

In each case the president-elect is inviting an interpretation that his behavior is treasonous.

I vote for the last-named option. To me, it's obvious.

Look, we all know that Paul Manafort remained part of Team Trump even after his official dismissal, while Ivanka remains BFF with Wendi Deng, who -- by most accounts -- is Putin's girlfriend (although she denies it). Trump has major assets in Russia. The Tillerson nomination for Secretary of State indicates that the plan all along has been for Trump to broker that half-trillion-dollar Exxon deal with Russia. Russia's deputy foreign minister admitted that there were contacts between the Trump campaign and Putin's government.

On another front: There are renewed attacks on Trump's mental health.

The question before us: Will any of this sway the electoral college? The majority of Americans would prefer to delay the vote, but I see no constitutional method of doing so. The other question in that poll is a bit frustrating:

Given these intelligence reports, to what extent do you agree or disagree that members of the Electoral College should change or withhold their vote on Monday, and instead allow Congress to review the allegations and appoint the next president?

Forty-six percent say yea, 54% say nay.

The problem here is the wording. See, what I want to know is whether the people support the right of the electors to change their vote -- period. Count me among those who would like to see the EC decide in favor of anyone but Trump. Why? Because the EC can go off the reservation entirely and pick someone like Romney or Kasich. The Constitution forces the House (dominated by Republicans) to choose between Trump, Clinton and Johnson.

The prospect of a Johnson presidency amuses me no end, but I don't think he has much of a chance -- and neither, to be ruthlessly honest, does Clinton. Even if Donald Trump were to fill his Twitter feed with videos of his sexual escapades with Putin, the House would not choose Clinton. If the EC is going to say "Let Congress do it," they might as well just give it to Trump.

It would be nice if the electors were to act boldly and save us from this unhinged traitor. I do not believe that they will; I have no faith in the faithless. But any protest votes will look good in the history books, and will remind the nation that conscience still plays a role in our affairs. (And I do recognise that the faithless operate at some risk.)

Let's gather 'round the Reichstag fire. Trump directed one of his characteristic rampages against Pail Krugman, who committed the sin of suggesting that a 9/11-style attack would "legitimize" Trump's dubious presidency, just as the first 9/11 did for Bush.

"What kind of demented person would say that?" asked Trump, whose expertise in dementia is unquestioned.

Krugman was careful to state that he was not predicting a "false-flag" event. I am. And the motive, I believe, will not be to dispel the taint of illegitimacy but to dispel democracy itself.

The fact that Trump reacted with such fury tells me that Krugman stumbled onto something. One thing we've all learned about the Donald: Psychologically, he's pretty transparent. You see, Trump is a classic conspiracy buff -- and like the other buffs I've known (most of whom were un-corkable motor-mouths), he would rather bite off his own nipples than squelch an unvoiced thought.

I wonder if plays poker? "Holy shit! Another KING!"