What kissing the VSG's ring will get you

Remember that TV ad Jeff Sessions ran when he first announced he was running to get his old Senate seat back? The one in which he explicitly mentioned working for the Trump agenda and donning a red MAGA cap at the end?

I have to say I frankly was astounded. After the humiliation he'd come in for during his time as attorney general, he was willing to genuflect like that?

A lot of good it did him:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

3 years ago, after Jeff Sessions recused himself, the Fraudulent Mueller Scam began. Alabama, do not trust Jeff Sessions. He let our Country down. That’s why I endorsed Coach Tommy Tuberville (

@TTuberville

), the true supporter of our #MAGA agenda! https://secure.winred.com/tommytuberville/donate

He has responded in a way that demonstrates some semblance of spine, but it comes a little late in the game:

Conversation

Jeff Sessions

@jeffsessions

.

@realdonaldtrump

 Look, I know your anger, but recusal was required by law. I did my duty & you're damn fortunate I did. It protected the rule of law & resulted in your exoneration. Your personal feelings don't dictate who Alabama picks as their senator, the people of Alabama do.

He's learning what so many before him have learned: that the Very Stable Genius's insistence on loyalty is a one-way proposition. It will not be reciprocated.

Thoughts on the VSG's endorsement of Tommy Tuberville in the Georgia Senate race

Look, Tuberville seems like a fine person with credentials that would recommend him for an entry into politics. His football coaching career was distinguished. He's quite involved with his church and has contributed time and other resources to charitable causes.

So the argument could be made that Trump, in weighing all the considerations, concluded that a fresh face on the scene was the way for the GOP to proceed.

Still, when one considers that Sessions was the first Senator to come out forthrightly and full-throatedly for Trump and, as Noah Rothman puts it, "[give] Trump establishment credibility when no one else in the party would," and how Sessions's first television ads in his campaign to regain his former Senate seat was a shameless shill (including the donning of a MAGA cap), even after he'd been humiliated repeatedly by the VSG, it points up how one little lapse in loyalty, in Sessions's case,  recusing himself from the Justice Department's investigation of the 2016 campaign, saying, "I should not be investigating a campaign I had a role in," can sever the bond between sycophant and narcissist.

I obviously can't say for sure, but it seems to me that doling out punishment for insufficient ring-kissing had to be a factor, Tuberville's qualifications notwithstanding.

The pathetic gaggle of Kool-Aid guzzlers still shilling for the VSG

Exhibit A is Jeff Sessions, who, before the VSG made the switch from business to politics, had amassed an impressive record as a principled conservative.

As we know, his stint as Attorney General did not go well, and ended in cringe-inducing humiliation:

It's no secret that President Donald Trump loathes his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. The reason it's no secret is because on a weekly basis -- and sometimes even a daily basis -- the President is tweeting his distaste for Sessions.

Just when you thought the bullying couldn't get any worse -- Trump has repeatedly said he would never and should never have hired Sessions, called him "beleaguered," "very weak" and "disgraceful," and reportedly refers to the former Alabama senator as "Mr. Magoo" -- today happened.

The scene: A FEMA briefing in which Trump and a number of his Cabinet officials were seated around a table. For most of the Cabinet officials, Trump was effusive in his praise of the job they were doing. And then there was Sessions.

Here's what Trump said about each of the Cabinet members; I saved Sessions until last because, well, you'll see.

* Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: "Mike. Mike, another great job you are doing. Secretary Michael Pompeo. We're keeping him very busy. We're keeping you so busy. You're going to be flying -- a lot of flying in the next couple of weeks. But what a job you've done, and we appreciate it. The whole country appreciates it, Mike. Thank you very much." (57 total words)

* Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin: "Steve Mnuchin. Steve, wherever you may be. He's working hard on those taxes and keeping the taxes down. We passed the greatest tax cut in the history of our country, and lots of other things. And thank you very much. Great. I think we say that we have had the strongest -- this is the strongest, from an economic standpoint, that our country has ever been. We're doing better in terms of business, in terms of unemployment. We've broken the record with so many different groups. African-American, the lowest unemployment in history. The Hispanic lowest unemployment in history. Women, lowest unemployment in 21 years. Seven trillion dollars in worth we've created since the election. Seven trillion with a 'T.' Not with even a 'B.' And that's a number that nobody would have thought was possible. So thank you to everybody. That's been fantastic." (144 words)

* Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke: "Secretary Ryan Zinke. Keeping very busy. I know that, Ryan. That's good. That's good for you. Right? Keeping busy and opening up those lands so people can use them and enjoy them. Largest landlord in the world, Ryan. Nobody knows that. But you're the largest -- by far, the largest landlord. It's almost half the United States if you think about it. Right? So great job you're doing." (68 words)

* Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue: "Sonny Perdue. And those farms are doing well, and I did the farmers a big favor last night. Right? I did a big, big favor for the farmers. We love the farmers, and they were happy. I know that Sen. Grassley and Sen. Ernst were very happy with what we did. So thank you for your help. I appreciate it." (60 words)

* Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: "Wilbur Ross, secretary. I appreciate it, Wilbur. We're renegotiating a lot of trade deals, and they're really fantastic. And it's going to -- we have the worst trade deals ever made. And we're going to have now fair trade deals. We have made the worst deals ever made. NAFTA is a disaster. World Trade Organization is a disaster. I could go deal after deal, and it's been very unfair to our country, to our workers, to our companies and to everybody else involved. And we're changing them around rapidly. So, Wilbur Ross, thank you very much." (96 words)

* Labor Secretary Alex Azar: "Secretary Alex Azar. Alex, I'm very proud of what you've done. And you're coming up in about another month with health care. Maybe even sooner than that. We're going to have a great health care bill planned. And it's going to be great health care for a much smaller price than anybody ever thought possible. And I really appreciate that. And our new project that we're really working on very hard is reducing the cost of prescription medicine. And that's going to be something that people will not forget. Some people think that's almost more important than the health care. I've had people say, 'Which is more important?' They're both important. But we're reducing the cost of medicine because of what you're doing, and we appreciate it." (127 words)

* Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson: "Secretary Ben Carson, who's got some things going on at HUD that we're very excited. We had lunch the other day, and what you're doing is great, Ben. That's really inspirational. More than just brick and mortar. It's really inspirational, Ben. And we appreciate it very much. Thank you very much." (51 words)

* Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao: "Elaine Chao, secretary. All you do is produce. You do it in a very quiet way and so effective and so incredible. What a job you're doing with transportation. It was a great decision. Thank you very much." (38 words)

* Energy Secretary Rick Perry: "Rick Perry. Rick is -- I thought you were going to the VA. But we have great people at the VA, so -- so now we don't have to worry about the VA. I think we have great -- I always thought Rick -- I'd put him right over in the VA, and you would have done great there, too. But you're doing a fantastic job at Energy. And we're now the largest in the world in energy, Rick. The largest in the world. And we're now exporting energy for the first time. Never did it. Now we're exporting energy. But we have become the largest energy producer in the world. Who would have thought? But we've opened it up a little bit, Rick, right? And we've let our people go and do their thing. And they're doing a great job." (141 words) 

* Acting VA Secretary Peter O'Rourke: "Acting secretary of the VA, Peter O'Rourke. And, Peter, the combination of you and Wilkie, I think that's going to be an unbeatable combination. So thank you for all your help. I'm hearing only good things." (36 words)

* Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: "I don't know, what do I say about you? Huh? You are doing great. And the border is coming along. And the wall is going up. We have $1.6 billion being spent on phase one of the wall and we'll get additional funding. And every week that goes by, people realize it more and more that we have to have the wall. And we're doing great in San Diego and different places." (72 words)

* EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt: "Administrator Scott Pruitt. Thank you, Scott, very much. EPA is doing really, really well. And you know, somebody has to say that about you a little bit. You know that, Scott. But you have done -- I tell you, the EPA is doing so well. So many approvals -- and disapprovals. If they don't qualify, they don't qualify. But we don't have to wait 15 years to tell somebody they don't qualify. And people are really impressed with the job that's being done at the EPA. Thank you very much, Scott." (91 words)

* OMB Director Mick Mulvaney: "Mick Mulvaney. He's got two hats on now, right, Mick? You've got two hats, not just one. And you're doing great at both. But Office of Management and Budget has been good, and our budget this year will be -- there will be a lot of cutting, because we want to cut. You know, Mick is really more of a cutter than the other. But we had to get the military through. We got $700 billion approved for military. We needed that. And in order to get that done, we had to do some things for the Democrats that we would normally not do -- because we consider a lot of it waste and a horror show. But in order to get our military and $6 billion for opioid. So we got the -- which Melania is so heavily involved in -- and we got that taken care of. And very importantly, next year, $716 billion for military. So, Mick, great job. And this time, you can start cutting, OK? Because we have our military taken care of now, so you can start really cutting." (185 words)

* Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon: "A friend of mine for a long time, Administrator Linda McMahon. And, Linda, I was just being told the other day what you've done in small business has been incredible. One of the real stars. And Vince and myself and your family, we're all proud of you. But what you've done is fantastic. So much work. People don't realize your small business is really -- it's really a very massive business. And you add it all up and those numbers are not small business. They're bigger than just about any company you can even think of. So congratulations, Linda. Thank you very much." (103 words)

* Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you very much." (11 words)
Eleven words. And five of those 11 are either Sessions' name or his title!!! Trump was even capable of coming up with 91 nice words about Pruitt, his beyond embattled EPA administrator.

All because Sessions followed the law and recused himself from the Russia investigation.

So how does Sessions launch his bid to reclaim his Senate seat?

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions wore a “Make America Great Again” hat in a new campaign advertisement, telling prospective voters he would be President Donald Trump’s “number one supporter.”

Sessions, 72, was Trump’s top law enforcement official from 2017 to earlier this year. Sessions was in the Senate when Trump announced his campaign and famously became the first Senator to endorse Trump, announcing on Feb. 28, 2016: “We need to make America great again.”

The phrase was Trump’s slogan during the campaign and helped spawn the so-called MAGA hats.

“Out of the 100 United State Senators, I was the very first one to stand with Donald Trump. While the others were hiding under their desk, I went to work. I knew he was the one to make America great again,” Sessions said in the new campaign video.

“I’ll keep fighting for President Trump and his agenda.” 

 

Sessions then put on a “MAGA hat” and said he approved the message in the ad.

Sessions in his campaign announcement video touted the fact he hasn’t criticized the president since leaving the administration.

“When I left President Trump’s cabinet, did I write a tell-all book? No. Did I go on CNN and attack the President? No. Have I said a cross word about President Trump? No,” he said. “And I’ll tell you why: First, that would be dishonorable. I was there to serve his agenda, not mine. Second, the President is doing a great job for America and Alabama, and he has my strong support.”

Then there are these takes from talk radio's two premier loudmouths:

As the impeachment hearing was underway today, Rush Limbaugh said that both Bill Taylor and George Kent are “self-important nerds” who are only upset because the president wouldn’t do foreign policy their way.

Limbaugh said the impeachment hearings are revealing “exactly what this deep state is,” remarking that the witnesses are “professional nerds who wear their bow ties and they have their proper diplo-speak.”

Taylor and Kent have both testified to concerns they had about how U.S. policy towards Ukraine was not being helped by the “irregular” channel Rudy Giulianiwas part of.

Limbaugh mockingly said, “These guys are simply ticked off that they were not listened to. They are ticked off that they were not heard… There hasn’t been anything but a bunch of self-important, narcissistic, ‘we run the world’ kind of guys really ticked off that they were ignored, that they were not listened to.”

He continued framing Taylor and Kent as arrogant and called them “self-important nerds who do not understand how they are seen, do not understand how their work is perceived by people.”

“They are from a different world, and it’s a world where they think they are in charge. It’s a world they think they run,” Limbaugh said. “They don’t get to determine foreign policy. But in their world, they do. In their world, they are in charge of foreign policy. They believe in their own superiority. They believe in their own competence and importance with a complete cluelessness.”

Sean Hannity made similar remarks on his radio show today, saying, “What you’re really watching are these nerdy guys that don’t know President Trump, never met with President Trump, that speak to the European Union ambassador, make interpretations out of his conversations that actually contradict his testimony, and obviously they have a level of self-importance that is just nauseating to me.” 

Now, the Limbaugh transformation is a true disappointment. At one time, he was a brilliant analyst and articulator of core conservative principles. Hannity, I never cared for. He's a crummy polemicist who has never demonstrated any depth to speak of. He's always been a hot dog.

The momentum is gathering, isn't it? Everybody's true character is coming to the fore. There's no margin left between image and reality.

 I think it behooves us to heed the admonition of King David, who was qualified to say it because he knew what a fallible leader he had been in his time:

"Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save"

But at least some human beings make the attempt to conduct themselves admirably.

 

Friday roundup

If there's an exceptionally exceptional piece by Kevin Williamson out on a given day - everything he writes is exceptional - we lead with it in a roundup. I can't remember a more thorough summing up of  one of the basic differences between the American Right and Left than what he offers this morning. The Left tends to view things on a national scale, where as the Right tends to look at things microcosmically, starting with individual sovereignty and moving up through the cultural distinctions of various locales and regions, and setting great store by the sovereignty of states.
He reminds us that we must consider history's nuances. For all the keep-it-local impulse that the Republican Party, particularly since the modern conservative movement has been impacting it, is informed by, there's a corporatist / grand-scheme element that dates back to the great Abraham Lincoln:

The Republican party of President Lincoln’s time had a wing that was recognizably conservative in the contemporary sense of that word, but President Lincoln, like his fellow Republican President Eisenhower a century later, was very much interested in what he called “improvements,” meaning mostly what we now call “infrastructure,” canals and railroads in one century and the federal highway system in the next. These projects were thought of as being national in the sense that they would improve the economic productivity and public life of the nation as a whole by enabling the easy movement of goods and people — and, if necessary, soldiers: It’s the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

And the argument can be made that some degree of nationwide uniformity has been necessary:

Projects that are national in scope in a country as large and complex as the United States inevitably require standardization and regimentation. In the early days of railroads, different railways used different gauges of track, a situation that was of relatively little practical consequence until the railroad network grew extensive enough that the discrete systems began to interconnect. Different parties had different political and economic interests in particular configurations of track — hence the so-called Erie Gauge War — but competition among the railroads and the economic power of the major industrial and agricultural concerns inconvenienced by incompatible tracks were sufficient to ensure almost universal standardization. The emerging Internet had standardization needs that were in many ways similar.

In our time, we think of progressives as being anti-business, or at least skeptical of the political and economic power of big corporations and business alliances. But the political thinking of the Progressive Era was profoundly influenced by the business philosophy of the time, which was not the libertarian-oriented business thinking we are used to hearing from Charles and David Koch or the Chamber of Commerce. The experience of building out the railroad network had left a profound mark on American business culture, as had the emergence of such techniques as the use of standardized and interchangeable parts in machine construction (one of Samuel Colt’s many contributions to American life), assembly lines (particularly in the automobile industry), and more systematic approaches to business management. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s “scientific management” philosophy was ascendant, and business and government alike was consumed with efficiency, rooting out waste and redundancy, and coordination. Many of the leading business thinkers of the time were frankly corporatist (the railroads had been a textbook example of corporatism in action), decrying “destructive competition,” duplication of effort, and the general messiness of free markets. You can still hear the echoes of that when Senator Sanders decries the many available brands of deodorant. 

Add in the foundation to this provided by the progressives - Thorstein Veblen, Richard T. Ely, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson et al - which posited that in an age of urbanization and industrialization, the Constitution alone was no longer a sufficient operating manual for federal government and that a cabal of pointy-headed experts needed to be appointed to executive-branch agencies to guide the nation on matters ranging from energy production to transportation to health care to education to management-labor relations, and you have a one-size-fits-all policy:

If you believe that what the world needs — what America needs — is efficient expert management, then you will pursue policy goals that emphasize size, scale, homogeneity, systematization, and regimentation. And your preferred instrument almost always will be the federal government; 50 states doing things 50 different ways is incompatible with your vision of intelligent expert administration.

This explains some of the Left's current obsessions, the Electoral College and the Senate:

It is unsurprising, then, that most of the foregoing Democratic arguments are mere demands for greater political power disguised as calls for “fairness,” an infinitely plastic concept. And we can be reasonably confident that if certain shoes had been on other feet — if Democrats enjoyed a commanding position in the states, or if Mrs. Clinton had won in the Electoral College with a couple million fewer votes than Donald Trump — that the intensity of their complaints would be diminished. But this is not only naked political calculation: The belief that the United States should be administered as a single unitary entity and that the 50 states are 50 impediments to national progress and efficient national administration is deep in their political thinking. In fact, it may even be the case that their political calculation is a lagging indicator driven in part by their policy vision: Being so focused on Washington, it is natural that the Democrats have allowed the atrophy of their political muscle in the states, leading to diminished power in them. At the same time, the people in the more rural states have not failed to appreciate that the Democrats’ Washington-first approach devalues them and their communities — precisely the problem that our constitutional order was designed to ameliorate. 

At Townhall, Allie Stuckey invites us to contemplate the sheer arrogance of this:

A viral tweet listed Republicans for which white women voted in the midterms and concluded, “white women gonna white.” 

Don’t worry, though. The Women’s March is here to help us out: “There’s a lot of work to do, white women. A lot of learning. A lot of growing. We want to do it with you.”

What this amounts to is the essential leftist message: "You will be made to get your mind right." There will be no room for this:

The claim is that we are voting against our own interests. But this assumes our interests are liberal interests—abortion, closing the “gender pay gap,” gun control, etc. And they’re just not. We women who vote Republican do so because, in general, we believe in things like the Second Amendment, lower taxes and restrictions on killing the unborn. We are not oppressed. We’re just not progressive. 

And these people will be erased from your memory:

These are the same people who completely ignore successful conservative women like Nikki Haley, Condoleezza Rice, or Carly Fiorina–not to mention the Republicans who ran in the midterms. Martha McSally, colonel in the Air Force, congresswoman and Arizona senatorial candidate certainly isn’t trying to repress women. The first female governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, doesn’t seem to be relegating women to the kitchen. Young Kim, Congress’s first Korean-American representative, isn’t exactly a slave to the patriarchy. These women, though, just don’t fit the narrative.

Rachel Larimore at The Weekly Standard says that the disgusting and insulting calling out of Mia Love (among other Republican Congressional candidates who lost on Tuesday) as having lost because she was insufficiently loyal to him (" . . . gave me no love and lost. Sorry about that, Mia.")  puts the lie to the idea that he gives an actual diddly about abortion.

The relentless march of the campus jackboots:

At Colorado State University (CSU), administrators have designated the common greeting "long time, no see" as non-inclusive language.

That's according to a student, Katrina Leibee, who writes for the campus paper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian. Leibee met with Zahra Al-Saloom, director of diversity and inclusion at CSU, who showed her a list of terms and phrases considered contrary to the university's mission of fostering inclusion.

"One of these phrases was 'long time, no see,' which is viewed as derogatory towards those of Asian descent," wrote Leibee.

Leibee also noted that administrators discouraged use of "you guys" in favor of "y'all," which is gender neutral (and ungrammatical, but this is apparently less of a concern). Her column does not claim that administrators force students to use the gender neutral terminology, just that such terminology is preferred.

Al-Saloom did not respond to a request for a comment.

Not that it will persuade the Very Stable Genius, but John Yoo, George Conway and Clarence Thomas all think the VSG's appointment of Whitaker as acting AG is unconstitutional.

And the indispensable Heather MacDonald, writing at City Journal,  (I'm currently reading her new book The Diversity Delusion, and it's excellent) says that firing Jeff Sessions was a dumb move on the VSG's part, that the VSG couldn't have asked for a more reliable ally on immigration policy and basic law and order.

The Very Stable Genius gives us fresh indications of his rudderlessness

First, there's this:

President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons. 

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded. 

He also said this to Pat Toomey:

 President Donald Trump asked Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who's worked on a bill to strengthen background checks for gun purchases, whether he left a proposal to raise the gun purchasing age to 21 out of his measure because senators are "afraid of the NRA."

In an exchange during a meeting of a bipartisan group of senators at the White House, Trump asked Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Toomey if their background check bill they authored in the aftermath of a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 included a provision that would have raised the age at which individuals could purchase rifles from 18 to 21.
Toomey said it did not.

"You know why? Because you're afraid of the NRA," Trump said.

Now, a conversation can be had about what kind of organization the NRA is today, whether it's proper that its focus has gone beyond gun policy strictly speaking. But Trump is also on record as saying this in recent days:

“Don’t worry about the NRA. They’re on our side,” Trump told more than 35 governors, including Rick Scott of Florida, during a White House meeting. “If they’re not with you, we have to fight them every once in awhile. That’s OK. They’re doing what they think is right.” 

What comes through is the basic Trump attitude toward dealing with any groups: He thinks he can ruffle their feathers, cause disarray in relations with them, but in the final analysis get them in line because, well, his leadership is irresistible.  It's just one more manifestation of his  outsized ego.

He does it to individuals, too. Jeff Sessions stuck his neck out while still a senator, very early in the campaign season. A considerable swath of the Republican Party was keenly interested in coalescing around someone other than Trump, but Sessions decided to pivot to populism and throw his full support behind the VSG.

Since then - since Trump appointed Session as Attorney General - he has publicly - as on Twitter - berated Sessions for various perceived infractions. It happened again just the other day:

Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!

Consider that IG Horowitz is even now looking into the matter of Hillary Clinton's private email server, and his investigation of it has been handled. He's hardly a partisan hack.

This, like the dismissive remark about due process regarding guns quoted above, indicates the low regard the VSG has for processes that protect basic integrity of a probe:

Seriously, Trump is attacking Sessions the day after the Justice Department announced that they’re investigating the president’s concerns that the Obama administration misused their surveillance powers in 2016. He is jumping through every hoop, catering to every wild-eyed, sweaty twitch of desperation from the man, and he still can’t please him.

Girl, get out of there!

Horowitz is overseeing an investigation into the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the probe into former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.

That probe reportedly helped lead to the early resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a frequent Trump target. Horowitz also uncovered a series of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which led special counsel Robert Mueller to remove Strzok from the team probing Russia’s election interference.

Horowitz is doing his job, but Trump wants something more, and immediate. He’s got no time for trivial things like due diligence or thorough investigation and gathering of facts.

For whatever Sessions does to please him, it will never be enough, because his early act of recusing himself from anything involving the Russia probe was seen as abandoning his trueduty – to show loyalty and protect Trump above all else.

So just like a battered woman, Sessions is on eggshells and rationalizing, attempting to please his man, and never knowing exactly what will set him off, next.

These are the kinds of situations in which the personality level, which is what those who find Trump objectionable - sometimes derided as NeverTrumpers (a silly term, given that he's been president for well over a year now) - meets the policy level head on. And chaos always seems to ensue.

Oh, and White House communications director Hope Hicks left her position rather suddenly. It was within hours of that exhaustive testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, at which she mostly remained tight-lipped, but did say that she sometimes has told lies for Trump.

It''s going to be interesting to get more backstory on that.

Saturday roundup

Doug Bandow has a piece at The National Interest entitled "German Politics: From Boring and Stable to Unpredictable." The main point is that the two parties that have been by far the major players since the late 1940s, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (well, there was that 1946 - 1989 period during which the eastern portion had as its for-all-intents-and-purposes exclusive party the Socialist Unity Party) have waned markedly in influence and a number of more populist groups have been on the rise. This was really brought home in Merkel's recent failed attempt to forge a grand coalition.

Germany is one of those countries that has actually been a series of nation-states, from the days of the Holy Roman Empire through the entity known as Prussia through the North German Federation, the empire of the Kaiser days, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, the side-by-side German nation-states of the above-mentioned period, and the current iteration. Memorable leaders have held sway during these periods, including Frederic the Great, The first and second Wilhelms, Bismarck, the monstrous Adolph Hitler. Since his end in a Berlin bunker, the succession of leaders has been - well, somewhat boring and stable. But through it all, there has been a readily identifiable culture, one that at times has contributed some of the greatest music and literature to the world, and seen the development of a number of social-science disciplines that have come to modern prominence.

Because of the lack of political continuity, however, the rest of Europe has always had good reason to be wary of what Germany was up to. Are we entering such a period now? Also, what effect is the recent influx of immigrants having on the cultural continuity?


Ivanka Trump is taking her own entourage to the Global Entrepreneurial Summit in India, and it doesn't include any high-level State Department people.

Yesterday, I linked to two pieces by Erick Erickson in which he talks about staying put in central Georgia rather than moving to the Acela Corridor and how it's impacted his career. David French at NRO today takes the context out a level, looking at the change in the tone of Erickson's polemics as his faith has deepened and assumed central importance in his life:

Erickson built his early reputation as a fearless conservative firebrand. His language could be lacerating, his devotion to the conservative cause seemed absolute, and he was on no one’s short list of cultural peacemakers.

But life happens. No, that’s not correct; God happens. Christians are familiar with the concepts of justification and sanctification. Justification is the moment when God — through His Son’s atoning sacrifice — declares a man righteous in His sight. Sanctification is the lifelong process of spirit battling flesh, of the redeemed man’s journey to holiness. In other words, it means that we change, and God uses many different instruments to accomplish that change.

Indeed. As I said yesterday, when God positions himself front and center in one's waking consciousness, One starts looking at the basics of how one is treating other people.

This is the question before me as an opinion writer as well: how to stand unwaveringly for principles one knows to be good, right and true without copping an attitude.


The other day, I put up a post entitled "Someone Please Take Away His Phone." The particular cringe-inducing Twitter snit Trump was engaged in at that time was with LaVar Ball. Well, no one has heeded my imploring. The national embarrassment president has now geared up for his annual Twitter tussle with Time magazine over whether he'll be named Man of the Year. Only Squirrel-Hair could have the world's most powerful position and still have the world's most fragile ego. "Probably is no good." A comprehensive archive of his he-really-tweeted-that outbursts would be quite a read.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line says that Attorney General Jeff Sessions may actually be the Trump cabinet member getting the most - and most conservative - things accomplished. Fronts on which this can be seen include voting rights, immigration and identity-politics issues.

Squirrel-Hair is quite the team-builder

Dressed down one of his first and most loyal supporters:

Shortly after learning in May that a special counsel had been appointed to investigate links between his campaign associates and Russia, President Trump berated Attorney General Jeff Sessions in an Oval Office meeting and said the attorney general should resign, according to current and former administration officials and others briefed on the matter.
The president blamed the appointment of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, on Mr. Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s Russia investigation — a move Mr. Trump believes was the moment his administration effectively lost control over the inquiry. Accusing Mr. Sessions of “disloyalty,” Mr. Trump unleashed a string of insults on his attorney general.
Ashen and emotional, Mr. Sessions told the president he would quit and sent a resignation letter to the White House, according to four people who were told details of the meeting. Mr. Sessions would later tell associates that the demeaning way the president addressed him was the most humiliating experience in decades of public life.

Echoes rather closely another recent Oval Office scene:

President Trump was in an especially ornery mood after staff members gently suggested he refrain from injecting politics into day-to-day issues of governing after last month’s raucous rally in Arizona, and he responded by lashing out at the most senior aide in his presence.
It happened to be his new chief of staff, John F. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, the former Marine general brought in five weeks ago as the successor to Reince Priebus, reacted calmly, but he later told other White House staff members that he had never been spoken to like that during 35 years of serving his country. In the future, he said, he would not abide such treatment, according to three people familiar with the exchange.

Why these distinguished Americans would ever put themselves in the position where they might be subjected to this is beyond me. I daresay one of these days someone's going to tell S-H, to his face, to f--- himself.

A former first-tier hero of conservatism jumps the shark

Can anybody tell me how the hell Rush Limbaugh thinks he is getting from his starting point (Trump's humiliation of Sessions looks baffling on the surface) to his conclusion (Trump is once again playing 4-D chess) with this line of "reasoning"?

His launching point really comes as a subtext to some kind of point he seems to be trying to make about Scaramucci asserting that most administration leakers are Obama-era holdovers.

Get any sense about how he's going to tie those together? Me neither.

Anyway, the launching point:

This public disrespect of Sessions by Trump has never made sense to me in any away. It hasn’t made sense in common sense. It doesn’t make sense. I don’t think Trump is off his rocker. I’m not like the media who think Trump is unbalanced and deranged. I think Trump is a masterful user/manipulator of the media. You take Sessions, whose incomparable value is advancing the Trump immigration agenda, and that’s why Trump was elected.

Okay, while I think Rush is deluding himself here, so far he's being coherent.

And the next paragraph is a pretty linear  recounting of what Jeff Sessions has been experiencing over the last year-plus - with one exception: this "diversion" business.

If he gets rid of Sessions, there’s nobody he’s gonna find that, A, could get confirmed, and, B, would continue what Sessions has started on implementing and enforcing the Trump immigration agenda. And that’s his value; not, you know, running defense on this Russia business. I think it’s all been a diversion. I go back to the time Sessions endorsed, through the campaign, through the transition, and then Sessions being nominated to be AG, the confirmation hearings. What’d they do? They savaged the guy as a typical Southern plantation-owner racist.

By "diversion,"  Rush seems to mean "running defense on this Russia business," given where he goes next:

They said despicable things about him, making fun of his middle name: Beauregard. But this week he has found new acclaim. He has been attacked by Trump, and the media and his fellow colleagues — the Democrats in the Senate who wanted to destroy him — have come to his defense. They’re speaking of his integrity, of his honor, and how it’s unseemly that some pig from Queens would ever treat somebody this way. Trump says (summarized), “He’s not doing a good job getting rid of the Russian thing. He’s not going on a good job investigating this. He’s not doing a good job. He’s disappointed me. He shouldn’t have recused himself.”

By the way, on that, don’t you think it’s still a little odd to still be carrying a torch for something that happened six months ago? I mean, get real. Sessions recused himself six months ago, and Trump’s acting like he’s still not over it? Come on, folks. So yesterday, Trump savages Sessions again. “Where’s the investigation into the leaks? That’s what’s really important here! We need the leaks investigated,” and today we get news that Sessions is on the verge of announcing just such an investigation, and this investigation will be of these Obama embeds and these people in the deep state, who they are and what they’ve been.

‘Cause real felonies have been committed there, and Comey wasn’t interested in it. We don’t know how many other people the FBI may or may not have been. Comey was not interested and didn’t do diddly-squat. So Trump sends out a call last night and the announcement Sessions is doing that, and Scaramucci is on Fox News today saying Obama holdovers are responsible for all of these leaks. I think that’s what this is all about. They know who the leakers are. ‘Cause there’s so many of them.

There’s so many leaks, so many leakers, they have to know who it is, at least some of them. So with Scaramucci today blaming Obama holdovers for a series of damaging leaks that have rocked the White House, distracted the White House, whatever, these leaks and these Obama holdovers are not helping, and he hinted that more staff changes could be on the way. He said: Listen, we have to crack down on leaks on a number of different fronts. What’s happened now in this past week, all these Sessions distractors are now saying what a great guy he is.

How much integrity he has and how it’s just unseemly for Trump to be treating him this way. I myself have joined that particular complaint. So now Sessions announces this investigation, and what are they gonna say about Sessions? Well, they’re gonna have to go back and say he’s a tool. “He’s a coward. He couldn’t take it! Trump starts ripping him publicly, and what does Sessions do? He bows town and says, ‘Okay, what can I do to get back…?'” So they’re gonna savage him again, but it’s gonna be funny to watch because they don’t have the credibility to do it anymore because they’ve just spent a week or more praising the guy.

As if Sessions detractors were a major factor in all this.


He then digresses into a reminiscence about how the Beltway establishment hated Dick Cheney when he was Bush 43's Vice President, and how that establishment then fawned over Obama and Kerry.

Well, okay, but he utterly fails to demonstrate any kind of parallels between any of that and this.

In the current situation, we're talking about the president publicly showing the utmost disrespect to his attorney general, who happened to be one of his earliest staunch supporters. And it's pretty clear Sessions is very pissed about it. Sessions and Trump are not even speaking. That fact is not going away just because the Justice Department is going to investigate leaking. To make some kind of connection, one would have to believe that Sessions was willing to be a pawn in a game designed to root out the deep state. I can't think of anything less likely.

Does this last paragraph tie it all together for you?

Jimmy Carter, smartest guy, he ended up not doing too well, but smart, smart focused guy. All these Democrats are brainiacs, John Kerry, and every Republican is an idiot. And so now here we have what appears to be a bit of media manipulation, a little bit of a feint. You put this all together, I think this is what they’re doing. I think it makes some sense because what’s apparent doesn’t.

Me neither.

Rush is trying to read tea leaves that aren't there.

Something happened when he got wowed, during the campaign season, by the unprecedented nature of the Trump phenomenon. He readily admitted then, and still does, that Trump's worldview and way of operating is not conservative, occasional policy dovetailing notwithstanding.

He was mightily impressed, in a slightly different way from the slavish devotees such as Hannity and Ingraham, but it now appears he may be going full fanboy.

And it's made a wreck of his vaunted powers of analysis.

The Obama holdover is probably one type of leaker. It's not the only type. Government is so big and the people comprising it have such an array of agendas that any number of people could have motivations for speaking clandestinely to reporters.

Then there's Squirrel-Hair himself. A guy who would rail repeatedly about the New York Times being a dispenser of "fake news" and then sit down with it for an extensive interview in which he gets the humiliate-Sessions ball rolling doesn't seem to be too preoccupied with message discipline.

No, Rush, it's what it appears to be. Trump demands fealty and ring-kissing from those who step into his orbit, but he doesn't give a flying diddly about reciprocating it. He's just an impulsive loudmouth.

The facts are so obvious as to be contortion-proof. Squirrel-Hair isn't nearly clever enough to mystify anybody.

Rush, you may be reaching your sell-by date.

Squirrel-Hair becomes more of a hot mess by the day

There was his address to the Boy Scouts National Jamboree in West Virginia. Not only did he not approach it as a chance to exemplify some dignified bearing to some 21st-century teens who are inundated with a grimly huge number of examples of a complete lack thereof, he exhibited an utter lack of focus. He meandered. He veered back and forth between whining and bragging. As others have pointed out today, it came off like one of last year's campaign speeches.

As I say, this was a perfect opportunity to show these young men that a US president prioritizes decorum. He blew that with the line, "Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I'm in front of the Boy Scouts?" And, of course, he then proceeded to speak about politics, taking the crowd back through the popular vote and electoral-vote numbers from last November, even getting into the arcane details of Maine's vote split.

He talked about "fake news." He tried to concoct an inspirational anecdote using a decades-old Manhattan cocktail party attended by "some of the hottest people in New York" as his material.

He made a point of pointing out that Obama never attended a National Jamboree.

He tried to make a veiled threat to HHS Secretary Tom Price's face funny, saying that if Price, who was onstage with him, couldn't use his influence in Congress to deliver enough votes for "A"CA repeal, he might just have to fire Price. Ha ha.

And that last embarrassment is just one of this still-young week's examples of the bad vibes he is befouling his cabinet with.

“If he can get treated that way, what about the rest of us?” one of the President’s Cabinet secretaries asked me with both shock and anger in his voice. I am told reports about Rex Tillerson (not who I talked to) are legitimate. He is quite perturbed with the President’s treatment of his Attorney General and is ready to quit. Secretary Mattis (also not who I talked to) is also bothered by it. They and other Cabinet members are already frustrated by the slow pace of appointments for their staffs, the vetoes over qualified people for not being sufficiently pro-Trump, and the Senate confirmation pace.

In fact, the Cabinet secretary I talked to raised the issue of the White House staff vetoes over loyalty, blasting the White House staff for blocking qualified people of like mind because they were not pro-Trump and now the President is ready to fire the most loyal of all the Cabinet members. “It’s more of a clusterf**k than you even know,” the Cabinet secretary tells me about dealing with the White House on policy. It is not just Tillerson ready to bail.

Then there are the tweets chiding Sessions and Congress for not looking into Hillary Clinton's Russia connections and other shady behavior. This, from the guy who said for Sessions not to pursue that because he "didn't want to hurt the Clintons."

And now he's even bad-mouthing the acting FBI director on Twitter.

Memo to the Stupid Party and the media figures who licked the Kool-Aid off the soles of S-H's wingtips in the summer of 2015: You clearly didn't give a flying f--- about seeing conservatism prevail. You could have put the energy you expended on this buffoon into any number of fine, principled contenders.

It is so very late in the day.

Fostering esprit de corps is not Squirrel-Hair's strong suit

The guy may have a base of brainwashed #MAGA zombies that will carry his water to the ends of the earth, but among those who sign on for paid positions in his inner circle, it doesn't appear to matter if you got on his train the moment it first blew its whistle.

Rudy, you ought to think about that before you start taking this seriously:

President Trump is reportedly considering the idea of nominating Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City and an ardent Trump defender, to serve as attorney general.

Axios reported Monday Trump is exploring the possibility of tapping Giuliani, and the news comes days after the president has publicly expressed frustration with the current attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times last week, Trump said he was angry with Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation into ties between Trump campaign officials from Russia.

The president said he never would've tapped Sessions for attorney general had he known the former senator would recuse himself from the probe.

"Sessions should have never recued himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else," Trump told the New York Times in an interview.

A little side observation: Conversely, it doesn't matter if S-H rips you a new one, either. He may sit down with you, as he has here with the New York Times, and give you all kinds of revealing tidbits with which to dominate a news cycle.


But with regard to dissing Sessions, he got right back into it this week:

Trump also slammed the "beleaguered" attorney general, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, in a tweet Monday morning for not investigating Hillary Clinton.

"So why aren't the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?" Trump tweeted.

Perhaps the way top officials and close confidants come and go with S-H is why, according to a MediaEthics.org poll, only 27 percent of Americans think he will serve out his term.  With the flightiness he demonstrates daily, I wouldn't be surprised if many among the other 73 percent think he may just fire himself.

UPDATE: Recommended reading: Michael Brendan Dougherty's NRO piece "Donald Trump Is a Nightmare Boss."

Thursday roundup

Caffeinated Thoughts has an eye-opening post about the insidious true objective of the push for "service learning" on university campuses.

The post below is about Jeff Sessions. In the situation dealt with there, he has some solid ground to stand on, as he thought he had a relationship of mutual loyalty with Trump. But there's another Sessions-related development that disturbs me greatly. If he has any compelling reason for pushing for civil asset forfeiture at a time when state governments are moving away from it, now - not five minutes from now - is the time to outline it plainly and fully. Every second he delays does palpable harm to his conservative bona fides.

The Women's March movement wishes a happy birthday to Joanne Chesimard. Its justifications for doing so are beyond lame.

The CIA is going to quit arming anti-Assad-but-also-anti-ISIS rebels in Syria. One way to look at it is that it fits into the overall incoherence of US Syria policy going back many years. The previous administration and the current one have veered back and forth from being overtly anti-Assad - to the extent, in an action a couple of months ago, of firing off 59 missiles at a Syrian government airbase - to saying the US and Russia have common aims there. It's probably the humane thing to do, given that the rebels had become pawns of a very confused policy.

And then there is Syria's neighbor to the north. Turkey's drift away from NATO will have ramifications - not good for the West, but beneficial to Russia, Iran and China.

One of his first and staunchest supporters gets thrown under the bus

The New York Times has the audio of its interview with Trump, in which he discusses the current state of his relations with Jeff Sessions as well as how the Russia investigation is encroaching on his family.

Why anybody would clamor to be in this guys' inner circle is beyond me. He talks a great deal about loyalty, but he's pretty bad about reciprocating it.

Plus, as Jay Caruso at Red State points out, recusal is not something that would have come out in the pre-nomination conversations between Trump and Sessions:

Sessions recused himself nearly a month after his confirmation. It’s a sure thing Sessions didn’t think he’d have to recuse himself when he first accepted Trump’s offer.

Notice too, the language Trump uses. Once again, the supposedly tough guy alpha-male complained twice in a minute about Sessions’ decision to recuse himself as “very unfair.”

Well, hey, the guy says that whining is an important arrow in his quiver.

Memo to the slavish devotees: Can you finally smell it?

I draw no firm conclusions on it, because there is no solid theme that emerges from the facts

Have you been enjoying the nonstop parsing of James Comey's possible motives, the blow-by-blow accounts of the Jeff Sessions testimony, the laser-like focus on how many meetings Kislyak and Sessions had in 2016, the MSM's insistence that all this has the strong smell of Watergate about it?

Me, neither.

The whole thing is the utterly predictable result of electing a rudderless loudmouth as president, surrounding him with some actually fine people, and then putting them in impossible situations due to the excesses of his character.

Sure, the MSM takes an unabashedly leftist slant toward everything.

Sure, there is validity to the claim of a "deep state" in which bureaucrats have strong motivation to protect the gravy train - and the institutional endorsement of their leftist worldview.

But to say that the man at the top has no culpability for this current morass is to reveal oneself as a willfully blind water-carrier. (Exhibit A: Charles Hurt at the Washington Times: "If only those in Congress had the political instincts or noble statesmanship of President Trump, we just might get something done around here.")

And when willful blindness gets wedded to positions of influence, truth fades from the scene:

Think of the avalanche of vitriol against James Comey. Trump fired him, misled the public about the reasons, and then absurdly trashed his reputation. But how dare Comey fight back and defend himself? How dare he “leak” a memo? Never mind that he stood up and answered questions, under oath, just days later. He’s a “leaker,” and no one likes a leaker. The same people who decry a rush to judgment against Trump are forwarding and sharing article after article claiming that Comey (without yet seeing the relevant evidence) potentially violated his employment agreement or even federal criminal statutes when he asked a friend to read excerpts of his memos to the New York Times.

Lost in the anger is a serious look at the truth (and implications) of his allegations. Did a president demand personal loyalty from an FBI director? Did he improperly ask him to drop an active criminal investigation of a former close adviser? Did he circumvent normal channels and demand that Comey, in essence, “clear” him publicly? Did Trump fire him when he failed to comply with these demands, and then hide the ball about the reason?

Instead, we get the Ken Starring of James Comey and Robert Mueller. It’s not enough to trash Comey; now there’s blood in the water around Mueller. Men like Newt Gingrich have pivoted on a dime. On May 17, Gingrich is declared that “Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.” On June 12, he attacked Mueller, saying that it was “time to rethink.” Others already got the jump on Gingrich. On May 18, Judicial Watch put out a statement calling Mueller a “bizarre choice” to be special counsel — because he was allegedly too politically correct on his approach to Muslim terrorism when he was FBI director. How does that bear on his fitness to investigate various aspects of the Russian election-interference controversy?

"Cacophony" is a word I used frequently to describe what we were heading toward as the 2016 campaign season unfolded and finally presented us with the lay of the land for our present year. Layer upon layer of fevered voices defending various kinds of turf, from policy orientations to career and financial interests (all at the expense of the three pillars of actual conservatism to which I hearken back at the risk of appearing tiresome).

For instance, Mueller is coming in for attacks based on the Democrat donors on his independent-counsel team.

Would the attackers have us forget this track record?

How do you feel, for example, about these credentials?

• Handed over $41,000 to Eliot Spitzer, who made it all the way to the Governor’s Mansion before his relationship with a high-priced prostitute became public. And gave almost $4500 to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner who publicly tweeted lewd pictures of himself.
• Has no problem handing out cash to some of the most liberal politicians hailing from New York. Gave $64,000 to Andrew Cuomo, helped elect and re-elect New York mayor David Dinkins, and donated $8,900 to Chuck Schumer, one of the leading Senate Democrats advocating for amnesty and to put liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
• Is a significant backer of the corrupt Democrat machine in New York, giving $138,000 to the party over several decades. Since 1999, has personally contributed over $350,000 to New York candidates and committees, and at least an additional $50,000 through one businesses.
• Has contributed to Hillary’s New York senate and presidential campaigns, and given at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation (though some reports have it closer to $250,000).
• Given thousands of dollars to individuals with legal and ethical violations. Gave $56,000 to convicted felon Alan Hevesi who went to prison for a massive pay to play pension scandal. Contributed to a disgraced Queens assemblyman who stole $90,000 from a little league association. And he donated to Sheldon Silver, a former Speaker of the New York State Assembly who is facing 130 years in prison for a corruption.

Pretty unsavory, don’t you think? Well that’s not the CV of any of Mueller’s picks for the investigative team. It is in fact a list of some of the many contributions to Democrats made by Donald Trump over the years. (Source.)

And to Charles Hurt's assertion that Congress is getting nothing done, the House is actually making headway - generally out of the glare of a media machine obsessed with finding an impeachment-worthy scandal  - on a major front. It passed  the Financial CHOICE Act, which goes a long way toward rectifying Dodd-Frank's harmful absurdities. And in the Senate, a stroke of procedural luck has fueled the determination of that body's Republicans to get moving on health care in a serious way:

Last week, while most of Washington obsessed over the self-serving cavils of a cashiered federal bureaucrat, Senate Republicans focused on a project much nearer to the hearts of the voters — repealing Obamacare. And the GOP made significant progress in that effort. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that repeal can be passed via reconciliation and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fast-tracked the process by invoking “rule 14,” which permits the Senate to skip laborious committee hearings that Democrats planned to use for protracted grandstanding. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans are coming around on proposed changes to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion about which they had expressed reservations.

The ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, was crucial to the GOP plan to get “repeal and replace” done quickly. Thus, the Republican Conference breathed a sigh of relief when Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi announced MacDonough’s thumbs up: “The health care bill passed by the House of Representatives, H.R. 1628 — the American Health Care Act of 2017 [AHCA], providing for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, complies with the Senate reconciliation process.” The use of reconciliation for repeal and replace has been denounced by the Democrats, of course, but they used it themselves to pass Obamacare. Senator Enzi’s announcement provides a summary of how it works:

After the House transmits H.R. 1628 to the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader will have the ability to bring up the legislation under the provisions of reconciliation, which include: a non-debatable motion to proceed that only reqquires a simple majority vote; no filibuster; time limits on overall debate, amendments, and motions; and adoption of the legislation by a simple majority vote. As well, there are strict parameters for contents of amendments, including the Byrd rule and compliance with various budget restrictions. 

It goes without saying that the Democrats are in denial about the parliamentarian’s ruling. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, alleged Independent Bernie Sanders, has already claimed that MacDonough didn’t actually say what she said: “The parliamentarian has ruled in favor of the Republicans on one narrow procedural issue, but it remains to be seen whether the House-passed bill qualifies for reconciliation in the Senate.” The Democrats will hang their hat on the “Byrd rule” mentioned in Senator Enzi’s announcement, which prohibits provisions unrelated to the federal budget from being included in a reconciliation bill. Sanders, et al., will no doubt claim that every provision of AHCA is precluded by the Byrd rule.

But let us remember that the federal government's primary raison d'être is keeping us safe, and the national security implications of whatever Russia's involvement in the 2016 election ought to be driving any investigations by Congress or independent counsels. Russia, by its alliances (think Syria and Iran), as well as its history of buzzing US planes and harassing US ships, as well as its previous forays into cyber-mischief, has proven that it must be dealt with warily.

And speaking of national security, while everybody is trying to make this former FBI director look good or bad, and switching sides at the slightest circumstantial prompting, and either lionizing Trump or making his cringe-worthy bluster the story of the day, how many people being paid by our tax dollars are focusing on the North Korean threat, which James Mattis has been calling urgent since he became defense secretary?

Hard to tell, with all this cacophony. A Left - the facets of which include elected officials, "deep state" bureaucrats, university students and professors, television talking heads, and social-media dispensers of venom - that is jockeying for the first opportunity to achieve its final goal of impeaching the president. A president whose repulsive character traits fuel that venom and that determination to impeach. A still-sizable army of his slavish devotees who want to obscure some very real questions, and who will toss anybody under the bus that threatens their Trump-can-do-no-wrong narrative.

And a world full of actors who don't see a sliver of daylight's worth of difference between all the factions within America, only an America that must be destroyed.

Not a recipe for making sense or maximizing human freedom, or even making America great again, however one would like to define that.