And The Flag Is Still There: Goodbye To Plan K!

[Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) probably hate that unrestrained video, and Megan Rapinoe would walk out on it.  And that, in the end, is why they and their supporters are going to lose]

From the The Complete Presidential Impeachment or Removal Plans A-Q (Updated 7/18/2019) below:

Plan K: Election law violations in pay-offs of old sex-partners

Now from the New York Times today:

“Federal prosecutors signaled in a court document released on Thursday that it was unlikely they would file additional charges in the hush-money investigation…. that ensnared members of Donald J. Trump’s inner circle and threatened to derail his presidency. In the document, the prosecutors said they had ‘effectively concluded’ their inquiry, which centered on payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to buy the silence of two women who said they had had affairs with Mr. Trump…. The president’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, was convicted in the case. He has said he helped arrange the hush money at the direction of Mr. Trump, and prosecutors have repeated the accusation in court papers. Mr. Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence.”

It’s fun watching the anti-Trump media try to spin this. Here’s AOL:

“The FBI believed then-candidate Donald Trump was closely involved in a scheme to hide hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who claimed an affair with Trump, court documents from the closed campaign finance case against former Trump-fixer Michael Cohen show.

The documents, released Thursday, describe a “series of calls, text messages, and emails” between Cohen, Trump, Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks, Keith Davidson — an attorney for the woman, porn star Stormy Daniels — and David Pecker, an executive of the company that published the National Enquirer.”

Oooh, “scheme.” That sounds sinister and illegal, but paying off old adultery-enabling sex partners who are threatening to embarrass you when you’re a public figure is business as usual for people like Donald Trump (and Jack Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, and so on) and it isn’t illegal. Nor is lying about whether such relationships ever existed, unless it’s under oath or to investigators.

The reason charges aren’t going anywhere is because the theory that this was an election law violation, or that if it was, it was sufficiently dire to be impeachable, was always a ridiculous stretch. Michael Cohen, who promised to be the worst and most unreliable witness of any lawyer in history if this ever reached trial, had been persuaded to plead guilty to a non-crime as part of his plea deal, purely to assist the quixotic effort to make the politically motivated case that an individual running for President doing exactly the same thing that he would have done had he not been running for President was violating federal elections laws despite the fact that no law prohibits that act.

And no, the reason there will be no charges is not because a sitting President cannot be indicted. The reason is that the theory was always contrived, its primary supporting witnesses (and their lawyers, Michael Avanetti and Lanny Davis) were unethical scum , and there was no precedent for treating such conduct as an election law violation.

So now Plan K joins recently rebuffed Plans, A, B, and C, the Emoluments Clause, on the curb of the Boulevard of Resistance Broken Dreams for trash collection.

It seems beyond argument now, after Democrats this week once again voted down an impeachment resolution by Rep. Al Green (a devotee of any and all plans, but basically Plan F (below), that the Democratic strategy is to keep talking about impeachment and holding investigations to further the Big Lie that there is any  justification for it, and hope that this somehow helps defeat the President in 2020. (It is just as likely to help him win.)

Ann Althouse, who also noted the Times report, quotes (and mocks) an amusing  and revealing comment from one of the  disappointed Times readers:

“Why does trump always get away with everything, every single time? he is completely immune from prosecution, let alone the very most basic of scrutiny. This is untenable and threatens the foundation of our democracy.”

I translate this as “Why isn’t the strategy of removing the elected President by using unfounded accusations, tortured interpretations of obscure laws, mainstream media-spread false narratives and relentless warfare against our institutions working?” The answer is: because President Trump, despite all his flaws, is more stubborn, defiant and resilient than most leaders, thankfully, and because the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the principles of justice and fairness, though wounded by the three-year effort at a virtual coup, remain strong.

Or as Francis Scott Key would say, “The flag is still there.”

Below is the updated list. I wouldn’t bet against a Plan R before it’s all over.

The Complete Presidential Impeachment or Removal Plans A-Q (Updated 7/18/2019)

Plan A: Reverse the election by hijacking the Electoral College.

Plan B: Pre-emptive impeachment. 

Plan C : The Emoluments Clause.

Plan D: “Collusion with Russia”

Plan E : ”Trump is mentally ill so this should trigger the 25th Amendment.”

Plan F: The Maxine Waters Plan, which  is to just impeach the President because Democrats want to, because they can.

Plan G : “The President obstructed justice by firing incompetent subordinates, and that’s impeachable.”

Plan H: “Tweeting stupid stuff is impeachable”

Plan I:  “Let’s relentlessly harass him and insult him and obstruct his efforts to do his job so he snaps and does something really impeachable.”

Plan J : Force Trump’s resignation based on alleged sexual misconduct that predated his candidacy.

Plan K: Election law violations in pay-offs to old sex-partners

Plan L: The perjury trap: get Trump to testify under oath, then prove something he said was a lie.

Plan M: Guilt by association. Prove close associates or family members violated laws.

Plan N: Claim that Trump’s comments at his press conference with Putin were “treasonous.”

Plan O: The Mueller Report proves the Trump is unfit for office even if it did not conclude that he committed any impeachable offenses. 

Plan P: Summarized here as “We have to impeach him because he’s daring us to and if we don’t, we let him win, but we can’t, but then he’ll win!”.”

Plan Q: Impeach Trump to justify getting his taxes, and then use the presumed evidence in his taxes to impeach him.

51 thoughts on “And The Flag Is Still There: Goodbye To Plan K!

  1. Question: How many of the Democratic Presidential candidates would openly endorse that astounding rendition of the Anthem? How many would say that they found it inspiring or stirring?

    I’m guessing Joe Biden, and only Joe. He has that going for him, if nothing else.

  2. Trump may be more law abiding than people seem to think. Isn’t he a germophobe? I’m guessing he likely stays on the right side of the law the same way he avoids contact with germs. Maybe that’s why he always “gets away with it.” He doesn’t “do it.”

          • All the way back to Grant, actually, I think. He was certainly no dummy but I think he gets a bad rap — his worst trait perhaps was too much loyalty to bad subordinates, a trait shared by several recent Presidents.

            The more I read of Ike, the better he looks to me, both as a general and as a president. I wonder if it wouldn’t be out of line to liken his presidential style to several of Jimmy Stuart’s characters. Not flashy, not loudmouths, but principled and effective. Did you ever wonder how historians would have treated Eisenhower if he’d been a Democratic president during the 1950s?

  3. To the TDS resistance anything is evidence of impeachment including things for which he will not or cannot be accused or prosecuted.

    No justice, no peace translated means do what I want or I will make your lives an even greater living hell than has been made of it so far.

    Trump may be the only politician alive willing to flip them off and continue governing.

  4. The ‘disappointed’ Times reader shouldn’t look to the ‘law’ but to the electorate. I’m guessing (hoping!) that even in the USA there is no way you could be elected ‘Managing Partner’ in a decent firm, or even chairman of a small theatre company (?), after disclosure of bad conduct like Trump’s. And refusal to display even a modicum of shame or embarrassment would mark you as unelectable. Maybe in 2016 sufficient voters were unaware of his character, but in 2000 there should be no such excuse. The real test will be on ‘the People’ not the ‘Constitution’.

    • Andrew,

      I suppose the electorate here has wised up and has grown tired of being pushed around by people who pretend and claim to be victims of the majority’s despicable impulses.

      Trump is the proverbial cod liver oil that we are taking to rid ourselves from the progressive virus that threatens to overwhelm our immune system of laws, values, and Constitutional checks on government infringement on our inalienable rights.

      For many Trump is the Churchill of our times. He represents the American spirt that said no to King George, that forged into the wilderness that created great new cities, that built the factories that built the armaments to save Europe from its own tyrants, and still provides the umbrella of protection Europe, and Asian nations enjoy. In short, the left’s bullying tactics slough off him because his fortunes are not tied to pleasing the right people.

      Trump does not vacillate on issues of national security but bends enough to reach out to domestic adversaries without being their lapdog. His future fortunes are not subject to a requirement to ingratiate himself with political king makers. Trump has no plans of using his elected position to become a multimillionare after leaving office and has no plans to make power seeking a career like so many others in Congress.

      For many of us he represents a champion who will not run from the Democrat demagogues who sanctimoniously claim all criticisms of their policies are rooted in bigotry and prejudice.

      I am 62 and have had enough of the left’s war on American values of promoting nuclear families, work ethic, personal responsibility and everyone plays by the same rules, civic engagement based on historical understanding, civil debate that results in the patriotic belief that the nation is good and worthy of protection, and an understanding that one’s right extend only to the tip of one’s nose. All rights come with the responsibility to protect those rights.

      Equal opportunity is an illusion because we all start at different places and bring different talents to the process of realizing opportunities so neither equal opportunity nor equal outcome can be a value; all we can do is accept it as a constraint on our pursuit of happiness. We reject envy of others as an American value but allow it to push us to improve our lot through education and skill development.

      The values of inclusion and openness to new entrants only exist when those seeking to join us accept the culture as it is and not dismiss it as evil and reprehensible. The new member may freely associate with anyone they wish but there is no requirement that we allow our culture to be misappropriated by those seeking to implement a non American culture on everyone else. Freedom of association is a 2 way street.

      Before you or anyone else decides to label me as a racist my statement is directed at every person who wishes to emigrate to the U.S. if you believe that the U.S. is a nation of bigots that needs your enlightened views on governing please stay home we have enough countervailing voices here already. We don’t need any other peoples 2 cents or drachmas. I don’t care if you are European, Asian, or extraterrestrial.

      • Chris, it honestly never crossed my mind to think of you as a ‘racist’. I largely share your ‘values’ and your concern to assert them. I don’t however follow how Trump could be for you a standard bearer for ‘the nuclear family’, for respect for women, for military service and duty, for honesty, for consideration, for kindness and all the associated qualities I suspect we both regard as the hallmarks of ‘decency’.

        It lurks as a suspicion that you voted far more ‘against Clinton’ than ‘for Trump’. You really deserve a better choice next time around, and I do hope you get it.

        • Andrew,
          Evaluate Trump’s children relative to the rest of society. Are they mere props in his life? No they are central to his existence.

          As for respect for women, what does that mean? Does it mean he sees women only as playthings for his amusement? I don’t think he does. Take a look at the number of women occupying high ranking roles in his organization. Yes he is attracted to beautiful women just as beautiful women are attracted to his wealth and confidence. Please don’t confuse beta male sublimation to women as respect it is from fear of rejection. None of the women who come and go in his sex life are innocents. They seek to obtain power, noteriety, wealth and security from him. So who is using who. Who lacks respect when you are willing to bed down with an old man that you would never consider dating except for his billions?

          As for his military service. Do you know for an irrefutable fact he bought his way out, or are we relying on the story of 2 daughters of a doctor that diagnosed his condition? How could the know this? I give him tje benefit of the doubt. I too was rejected for service by the doctors at the induction center i. 1974. Does that make me less of a person?

          So if honesty is going to be a qualifier for office we have a big problem. We talk about honesty like all issues are equal in merit. If he says we had the biggest X or fastest growing Y those are easily verified. When we have a president that talks about unity but privately creates works to divide for political gain that type of dishonesty is far more dangerous because people don’t want to see it. Trump promised certain things on his campaign, and of all the presidents of late he is actively pursuing those promises despite fierce opposition.

          As for kindness. How would you know if he is kind or not? Are you kind to everyone? What you see is what the press wants you to see. With the right access a biased journalist could portray any person as an ogre. You need to talk to people favorable to him before you make such judgements.

          FInally I never said he was a standard bearer for anything
          Obama said never bring a gun to a knife fight. Trump is our weapon of choice to do battle with all those that wish to restrict our ability to speak as we choose, enjoy the fruits of our own labor, and does not submit at the first salvo of charges racism, misogyny and the other rhetorical devices that are designed to force submission to the progressive agenda.

          • “As for respect for women, what does that mean? Does it mean he sees women only as playthings for his amusement? I don’t think he does.”

            This, in particular, is delusional. Especially considering the post under which you write it. Right now, we have the ability to comment here, because Trump’s political opposition is taking advantage of a six-figure hush payment Trump made to a porn star he had extramarital affairs with.

            This payment might, *MIGHT* be an election law violation, but I don’t think it is, because just like with John Edwards, who argued that he would have paid off his mistress anyway, to avoid his wife finding out, and so his payoff wasn’t made *because* he was a Candidate. Trump could, but I think he might be too proud to, argue that he pays his mistresses off all the time, and that practice predated his candidacy. That has the added benefit of being true, but it kind of makes the assertion that Trump places high value on either the nuclear family or women, generally, in kind of a different light.

            He’s also on his third wife, is on camera getting grabby with women on set, routinely walked through women’s changing rooms during the pageants he hosted, and while the ‘pussy grabbing’ comment isn’t an admission of sexual assault by any stretch of the imagination, “I can sleep with women because I’m rich and famous” doesn’t exactly mesh well with a healthy relationship with women in general.

            The rest of your comment…. Who is using who… It’s not mutually exclusive, but those women aren’t collectively the President of the United States, and there aren’t people like you lining up to defend their honor.

            • HT and Andrew. Sorry boys, the “character” horse was ushered out of the barn, by, et al. during the Clinton administration. All non-lefty voters want these days are results. A healthy stock market, a functioning economy, fewer military engagements, decent oil prices and so forth. Eight years of “it’s just sex” kind of took the sting out of sexual misconduct allegations. Sorry, they don’t register. Hey, now at least we’re as sophisticated as our European superiors, right? We’re not quaint and Puritanical any more! We’re almost as sophisticated as Canadians, eh?

                  • Look, that the left doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on from which to criticize Trump is obvious, but how can we, the people who harped on people like Kennedy and Clinton all of a sudden do a complete 180 and pretend shit like this is healthy without losing every single scrap of credibility we ever hoped to hold?

                    No Bill, this is hackery.

                    • No, HT, that’s pragmatism. We’re supposed to make a guy walk the plank so what? The left can put in their guy who’s just as sleazy and grabby and objectionable but in a more conventional way because he’s been doing it for fifty years (Joe Biden?) and bring with him all sorts of terrible policies? No thanks. I remember a good friend lecturing me during the Clinton years that it didn’t matter if Clinton was a terrible guy, the economy was good and he was doing a lot of good things. You know what, I’m there.

                    • That’s probably the right way to look at this, but it’s not what Chris is doing.

                      Look, you’ll never find a perfect candidate, they don’t exist, so you take the good with the bad. You say, I like this and this and this, I don’t particularly like this, but I can overlook it, and on the whole, this guys is better than the alternative, and boom! You have who you’re voting for.

                      But what I’m seeing right now is a lot of people lining up to say: “The other side is so horrible, that all of a sudden, not only am I willing to hold my nose and ignore these beliefs I’ve held my entire life, but maybe I was wrong and I should never have believed them. Maybe this behavior is good!”

                      I’m not saying don’t support him, I’m asking everyone to be honest about who he is. I get that the left is going to say that he has all kinds of personal failings and so we should vote for their person, but they’re idiotic, single issue voters. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and should be proud of it.

                    • I’m not saying don’t support him,

                      Good. I didn’t vote for him in 2016. I thought he was too far outside the norm. A flim flamm scam artist of a businessman. A real estate developer in an industry I labored in as a lawyer. But putting all that aside, he’s done a heck of a job as president. On the important stuff, he’s pretty much spot on. What a surprise but it shows that a non-professional politician can get the big chair and do lots of common sense things.

            • Unlike the racist accusation, Trump’s prehistoric attitude toward women is a matter of ugly record, with so many comments indicating deep-seated sexism, male chauvinism, and misogyny that its pointless to debate it. And yes, he “loves” women just like Jack Kennedy did and Bill Clinton does.

              • Jack
                The charateristics you described are accurate but those are learned behaviors.

                If you are a high school boy and the girls laugh at you because you are short and fat you are being trained one way to behave with women.

                Conversely, if you are tall, muscular, athletic etc and the girls seek to be with you and allow you to behave badly because they feared losing that which you bring to their social life. – you are popular and important that makes them popular too- .

                I have no idea how little Donald was brought up in his fathers house but I bet he learned a great deal from women when he controlled immense wealth.

            • He’s also on his third wife, is on camera getting grabby with women on set, routinely walked through women’s changing rooms during the pageants he hosted, and while the ‘pussy grabbing’ comment isn’t an admission of sexual assault by any stretch of the imagination, “I can sleep with women because I’m rich and famous” doesn’t exactly mesh well with a healthy relationship with women in general.

              You seem not to be able to take into consideration a deeper current that runs through people’s admiration for and hope in Donald Trump. If you listen to country music, and if you listen to Christian-oriented country music, you will notice an awareness of ‘man’s sinful nature’. The less-sophisticated, non-coastal demographic of the US responds to Trump. Why? They look at hims and see themselves.

              Just as they recognize their own fallen nature, they recognize Trump’s. They forgive him, let us say, even as they pray for his success.

              But the coastal elite (if you will permit the extreme generalization) is a truly perverted class. Meaning that they have sunk down into the depths of straaaaannngggeeeeee sexual deviancy to the degree that they parade a transvestite little boy around who minces and preens for their delight. Or invite transvestite men to read stories to children when they should be hauled out and physically abused. They host parades to celebrate sexual deviance and turn their undermining efforts into mass-celebrations. They no longer have a moral or an ethical brake to apply to their own advancing perverted intentions.

              And average, normal people who hold to the ideal of normalcy. They try to interpret the world that brings them level upon level of perversion and sickness, but they don’t have enough tools to be able to do it well and thoroughly.

              Donald Trump responds to a Zeitgeist, confused and muddled though it is. I do not say that it has no problematic elements, it certainly does because demagogy is just one step on the road to open tyranny. It has not ever functioned (as I am aware) to reestablish balance and sanity in a culture in the throes of advanced social degeneration. The way for Trump to have meaning is for Trump to inspire people to renovate themselves. If this happens, there will arise an opposition to those sick elements that are undermining America. If not, the same sickness will advance. There will be no quick cure.

              In American politics ‘subservience to the leader’ has not ever worked out positively for the people. One should remain aware that it is in the nature of the times that social manipulation go on. It seems to me that for thinking people it is better to observe what is going on with a certain cool detachment and not get sucked by the wind of social hysteria into ‘false-hope’.

            • HT.
              I used the words “only as playthings”. Thus, my statement is accurate. Trump sees beautiful women as conquests and confidants and leaders as well.

              Why are the women demanding payment?
              Why is it necessary to pay them off if they have no leverage? Because they can get it. Why do they not feel the need for shame? Because people that have your perspective feel the need to protect women because they are incapable of understanding mens motives. What you are doing is holding women to a lesser standard by saying they could not possibly done anything like this willingly. I call BS on this. Treating women equally means holding them to the same standards as men.

              Lets get something straight. I don’t condone his escapades but I don’t see John Glenn types rising up to take the lead.

              His comments about grabbing pussy was unfortunate and sophomoric but was the statement true or false? Despite the deep offense people took from that statement it is no different than saying there are women that throw themselves at the rich and famous. I wonder how often the Stones or Aerosmith had women throw themselves at them. Granted none are President but would their early behavior disqualify any of them. More importantly, how many men or women can state today that they never engaged in a purely physical relationship on one or more occasions. The whole reason why abortion on demand is one of those issues many women demand because they ARE AND WANT to be sexually active and many with multiple partners. Despite what many fathers think their daughters are not as pure and virginal as they would like to think.

              As for his marriages I can name numerous high profile women with far more divorces and sexual dalliances thanTrump. Do you want to lump Elizabeth Taylor into the same category as Trump in that regard?

              I understand you dislike Trump and I respect your perspective but to single out one element I used to dismiss me without evaluating the overall context is as sophomoric and unfair Trumps comments.

              • This is mypoic, stupid, and exactly what I expect from knee-jerk defenders of Trump.

                You want to say that your statement (“As for respect for women, what does that mean? Does it mean he sees women only as playthings for his amusement? I don’t think he does. “) referred only to the behavior of treating women like playthings, and is therefore true?

                I think I need to remind you of what you were responding to:

                “I don’t however follow how Trump could be for you a standard bearer for ‘the nuclear family’, for respect for women, for military service and duty, for honesty, for consideration, for kindness and all the associated qualities I suspect we both regard as the hallmarks of ‘decency’.”

                See, I thought you were responding to the person immediately proceeding you, not creating a strawman that no one asked about so you could knock it down. Literally no one before you mentioned “playthings”, let alone that Trump treated women only as…. So if you weren’t talking about Trump’s general goodness, I have no conception under God what the hell you think your point was.

                • HT, in American politics, it’s either Column A or Column B. Currently, that means: Trump or, to use Jack’s term, crypto-Communists (I call them Commies) or their useful idiot enablers. I’ll take Trump until the cows come home. If that makes me a knee-jerk defender in your eyes, that’s fine. If you think four more years of Trump will destroy your neighbor to the south, give a thought to four or eight years of any of the twenty Democrats running, all of whom are in the thrall of the Squad.

            • In Trump’s case, “I can sleep with women because I’m rich and famous” is simply a statement of fact. Acknowledging the truth doesn’t show disrespect to women.

              Is it disrespectful to have sex with women who want to have sex with you? Are you treating them like playthings? Or is it only disrespectful when the women are motivated by your wealth and fame rather than, say, by your dreamy good looks? Or does it become disrespectful when you do it with a lot of women in your lifetime instead of only a few?

              I am reminded of a column by Miss Manners many years ago. She noted that it is considered vulgar to wear many different-colored precious gems at the same time, and remarked that it is always pleasant to find out that it would be a breach of etiquette to do something that you could not possibly afford to do anyway.

        • Perhaps this perspective might help, though I am unsure how far to rely on it. If one looks at Donald Trump through a sort of Hegelian lens — as a phenomenon arising out of time and representing ‘a spirit of the time’ — his particular figure can be seen to become less personal and more psychological. Donald Trump is a ‘manifestation’ of something larger and different from donald trump.

          Donald Trump has come onto the scene as a reaction. One of the things I meditate on is that famous journalist’s dinner where President Obama roasted Trump. What he did there was to poke at a hornet’s nest. How shall we interpret that event? It seems possible that it established in DT a desire for revenge. But what happened at that event at an interior level? What did it mean? There are many layers there. But let’s focus on the most salient. A dangerous, even hubristic arrogance on Obama’s part to prematurely celebrate the conquest by the New America of the Old America. “Ha ha ha, you’re ridiculous and your day is over, sucker!

          Given certain characteristics of the American personality you really should have had to have been more careful by bringing such a cutting insult against a very real part of America, and an America that has not yet died and gone underground. As I have said dozens and dozens of times, the majority population, and the country itself, has been socially engineered by forces and powers it has never seen and which remained always invisible to it. America has been restructured demographically, and the majority demographic, for various reasons, simply took it and takes it, just as all the “Conservatives” (quote/unquote) on this Blog also ‘take it’. They agreed to the tacit terms out of a sense of fair-play and equity, and now they recognize (even if it is semi-conscious still) that they had been *shafted*, as the saying goes. This sentiment of ‘betrayal’ needs to be examined carefully.

          So, along is coming Donald Trump. But no demagogic figure dance to its own tune, such figures *hear* and *respond* to what their base thinks and feels. Even the NYTs is aware of this, and so much aware of it that they vilify that demographic. To understand that vilification one has to understand the tenets of Postwar ‘anti-fascist’ doctrine. I.e. The Authoritarian Personality, an idea that flowed directly from the so-called Frankfurt School. Here is Erik Fromm dealing on it:

          “However, we can hardly close the topic of the authoritarian personality without talking about a problem that is cause for a lot of misunderstandings. When recognition of authority is masochism and its practice sadism, does that mean that all authority contains something pathological? This question fails to make a very significant distinction between rational and irrational authority. Rational authority is the recognition of authority based on critical evaluation of competences. When a student recognizes the teacher’s authority to know more than him, then this a reasonable evaluation of his competence. The same is the case, when I as the passenger of a ship recognize the authority of the captain to make the right and necessary decisions if in danger. Rational authority is not based on excluding my reason and critique but rather assumes it as a prerequisite. This does not make me small and the authority great but allows authority to be superior where and as long it possesses competence.”

          [I have no idea if you are familiar with Adorno’s work in The Authoritarian Personality but it was an important work, though discredited, because it represents an historical-sentimental interpretation in relation to (dangerous) American culture and its dangerous majority demographic which had to be undermined and defeated].

          I suggest that what is playing out most starkly in our present is a contrast and tension between what is ‘rational’ and what is ‘irrational’. We can all I think see that Donald Trump represents irrational forces, and he ‘plays’ to this irrationality in his constituency. But why is he and why are they ‘irrational’? Because they are not allowed to be rational. They are not allowed to see and interpret their world and their reality in real, rational terms, but are forced to interpret themselves and their reality through contrived, invented, fabricated, romantic and idealistic lenses which are the creations of Public Relations campaigns.

          What this does is to drive their honest and genuine sentiments underground, down into subterranean, psychological territory. That is, they repress their genuine sentiments about their DISPOSSESSION, which they cannot face squarely and rationally nor can they act creatively and proactively to modify or ameliorate their circumstances (they are *trapped* as it were by social, government, and economic forces that comprise The System) and yet all their sentiments of betrayal still exist, and their main outlet becomes ‘irrational’.

          Trump shows the *face* of Ugly America, and in this sense an America distorted by what it has not been allowed to see and to face squarely. You see? Trump really is sort of *ugly*. His gestures, his vulgarity, his lack of rhetorical eloquence, his brutishness, his lack of ‘letters’. But then just turn your gaze to his constituency. Ask yourself: Are they given, are they allowed to have, social pride? Pride in their race and culture? No. They are hated feared held in contempt, painted as ridiculous figures receding in time.

          The other factor is that — again to push the Hegelian analogy — Donald Trump is resonating everywhere and has a Universal appeal. The resonance is *heard* by all those who sense their deformity at the hands of larger forces that mold them. The spirit of the time rises up and asserts itself.

          • The reference to Hegel:

            The zeitgeist German pronunciation is a concept from 18th- to 19th-century German philosophy, meaning “spirit of the age” or “spirit of the times”. It refers to an invisible agent or force dominating the characteristics of a given epoch in world history.

            The term is now mostly associated with Hegel, contrasting with Hegel’s use of Volksgeist “national spirit” and Weltgeist “world-spirit”, but its coinage and popularization precedes Hegel, and is mostly due to Herder and Goethe. Other philosophers who were associated with such ideas include Spencer and Voltaire.

            Allow me to suggest that we stand hard on the threshold of a major reaction to ‘hyper-liberalism’. The ‘tenets’ of the same are being countered. Therefore, wise to understand better the counter-current.

  5. The answer is: because President Trump, despite all his flaws, is more stubborn, defiant and resilient than most leaders, thankfully, and because the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the principles of justice and fairness, though wounded by the three-year effort at a virtual coup, remain strong.

    I didn’t even need to listen to the video – heard the trumpets of anthem blaring in my head just reading this….

  6. The reason is that the theory was always contrived, its primary supporting witnesses (and their lawyers, Michael Avanetti and Lanny Davis) were unethical scum , and there was no precedent for treating such conduct as an election law violation.

    How exactly was paying off a porn star supposed to be an election law violation?

    • The theory was roughly that Cohen’s paying her hush money was a campaign contribution (since her blabbing would hurt Trump’s campaign) that needed to be reported as such, and Trump’s complicity violated the law. Or something like that. It was nonsense.

  7. I still think they’re just waiting to do Impeachment because it’s too early. If they run it now, they know they’ll fail. Even if they manage to get it through the House, the Senate will just shut it down. Meanwhile there will be people who see the impeachment process for what it was in the end, a purely political move (well, and hatred of Trump).

    This is going to rear up next fall, as we get towards the election. It would not surprise me if some “suspect” information suddenly becomes available (maybe Pelosi has something already) then. That or they’ll just wait for Trump to say something dumb, as usual, and jump on that. Then the goal will be to get the impeachment process going, but not get it completed before the elections. Their hope then will be enough people won’t vote for a President in the process of being impeached.

    • Interesting theory. Plan X. A little dicey though. It will be seen for what it is and generate a lot of Trump voters. Which is what Nan Pelosi fears. Correctly, I think.

      • Yes, they will, despite Pelosi’s prior statements, urging, and desires. Rep. Al Green, hailing from the Great State of Texas, where once he sat as a justice of the peace in Houston dispensing pearls of wisdom of such great value that his dockets took all day long and summarily ruling against me ALL THE TIME, sought praise for the 95 or Democrat representatives who voted for his most recent coup de t- erm . . . impeachment vote and condemnation for the other 332 sniveling weaklings who voted to kill it. I believe this is Green’s seventeenth or eighteenth impeachment resolution.

        They have circled their wagons around The Squad (or the Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse), as have the remaining fifty-two Democrat presidential candidates, wholly oblivious to how badly they look to to The Deplorables. Pelosi is going to have a coronary if they keep it up.

  8. Eduardo Yamamoto
    Knock knock, it’s the United States

    Armen Hallaian
    freedom doesn’t knock, it rings

    Gem from the video comments…

  9. There are a lot of comments on this posting debating President Trump’s moral and ethical failings, and why they no longer matter.

    The answer for common Americans is short and sweet. War has been declared from the left. The right faces an existential threat, as does America as she has existed. The left wants to destroy what makes America unique in the world, and create a totalitarian socialist North Korea in her place.

    Ethics and morals take a far back seat in war.

  10. Pretty powerful video.

    Usually when I sing the national anthem, my thoughts run to those people in the darkness, in Baltimore harbor. They didn’t know how it was going to turn out but they were genuine heroes, battling (for the second time) the most powerful nation on earth. I can’t say that we won that war, but we did get our licks in.

    A somewhat amusing thought. Do you suppose there were people in London around that time opining about the folly of getting involved in a land war in North America?

Leave a Reply to Other Bill Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.