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.