Icons of Corruption

...of the Judiciary:  Brett Kavanaugh
There will be a shared pretense of Senators carefully considering the Supreme Court nominee's record, of interviewing him privately and publicly to hear his noncommittal responses, followed by both sides lining up around party lines for the final advise-and-consent approval.  The notion of impartial justices ruling purely on principles of law has completely given way to political power plays, completing a transition evident late in the last century (bitter, partisan confirmation hearings) and confirmed by the historic disaster of the Bush v. Gore decision.

Kavanaugh is "qualified", in the sense of having the resume one would expect of a Supreme Court justice, applying typical vetting criteria (law background, practice as a Supreme Court clerk and as a senior judge).  The most important criterion, though, is the political one, and that will determine how the votes will fall.  Kavanaugh is a proven party hack (Bush acolyte, drafter of Clinton bill of impeachment) and thus is a fair replacement for Anthony Kennedy (another hack).   Some analyses suggest he will be substantially further to "the right" than Kennedy--that will be seen in the fullness of time..   What I expect is that he, and Chief Justice Roberts as well, will behave themselves politically, trying in their decisions and opinions to temper the radical right-wing views of Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, in order to reduce public criticism of the Supreme Court and try to preclude its extremism becoming the basis for a wipeout defeat of their party in 2020 (and possible court-packing following that by victorious, vengeful Democrats).

The strategy of the timing of the Kennedy resignation and Kavanaugh nomination is a political one: it's designed to allow the Republicans to use the united (or near-united) Democratic opposition in the midterm elections to support their claim that it is Democratic obstruction which is impeding their ability to govern.  Not very original, but it may well work to inspire more of their base to turn out and avoid serious damage in the 2018 election.  This nasty piece of business (the confirmation) will wrap up before November, most likely in late September--that's something that Senators of both parties will be able to agree upon:  for Mitch McConnell, it eliminates the risk of a bad election outcome preventing confirmation, and for Democratic candidates in close elections, it gets the distraction out of the way so they can campaign.

For those who insist on the importance of parsing nominees' public statements in the confirmation process, I would suggest focusing on Kavanaugh's answer to one question (which must be asked):  Does your interpretation of the Constitution include an affirmation of individuals' right to privacy?  That is the fundamental finding behind Roe v. Wade, and the question of a fundamental right to privacy is one which will come up in other, very important contexts throughout Kavanaugh's term in the Court.  Kavanaugh is reputed to be "textualist", which suggests he would be negative on the question if he were to answer honestly (I don't expect him to do that, though--he will only betray his true views later, when it's too late.)

I see little chance that any of the Republican senators will defect from lockstep support of the second Drumpfian Supreme Court nominee.  If none do, it may appear that certain vulnerable "Red State Democrats" up for re-election are off the hook, in terms of their votes being decisive.  This notion led some  Democrats to argue that these vulnerable candidates should be free to vote according to "their conscience"--more like their conscious evaluation of the net political benefit to go one way or the other.  No doubt Manchin in W.Va., Heitkamp in N.D., Tester in Mont., McCaskill in Mo., Donnelly in Ind., and Nelson in Fla. will closely monitor polling of their constituents' preference on the confirmation vote (in crosstabs with party registration and intention of vote on the Senate race itself). and will let that data guide their individual consciences. 

I don't get to vote on these races, except in response to the constant emails I get* asking for money (all of these incumbents are actively soliciting me through email except Heitkamp--she seems to be more interested in independents than Democrats).  One thing I can guarantee all these candidates is that they will not get any more money from me if they vote to confirm.  (I just surprised myself by making a contribution for Manchin in response to an attractive email solicitation, and Nelson and Donnelly have received money from me in the past.)   For me, there is one factor that should override for any true Democrat:  let's call it the "Merrick Garland factor".

In this regard, I have added one "litmus test" issue (in this case one specifically for Democratic Senators) to the short list of my absolute requirements for those seeking my support (most meaningfully, through my contributions):  common-sense on guns (no one advocating more guns gets my support); no denying climate change; and openness to major electoral reform (gerrymandering, Electoral College, campaign financing limitation).

...Of the Executive Branch (Scott Pruitt)
A hallmark of the Drumpfian "philosophy" of governing is to appoint incompetents and destructive administrators to Cabinet positions.  There are so many examples: Ben Carson at HUD, Rick Perry at Energy, Betsy DeVos for Education are three clear ones.  Maybe the worst appointment of all (except for the non-Cabinet appointments of Michael Flynn, and then later John Bolton, as  his National Security Adviser)  was Scott Pruitt, who proved to be toxic in every way.  Trump was tolerant of his wasteful spending and self-aggrandizing paranoia, positively supportive of his anti-environmental approach to environmental protection, but he ultimately became politically harmful.  So he had to go, but the departure was eased for Drumpf by the fact that he will be able to replace him with a pollution industry lobbyist who was Pruitt's deputy.  More damage to follow.

...Of the Legislative Branch (Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy)
The most serious corrupting influence on our Congress today is the emergence of massive PAC money, and worse, "dark money" from donors whose identities do not have to be made public.  To be honest, this is a problem that plagues both parties and many candidates, and the necessity of constant fund-raising and placating major donors is more than a distraction from true legislative activity.

I am singling out Nunes and Gowdy for the disrespect they have engendered with their perversion of the Congressional power of investigation (which is supposed to be for the purposes of aiding legislation).  Nunes has been colluding with the White House in trying to undermine the Mueller investigation through the House Intellligence Committee which he chairs,  and Gowdy has made a fool of himself in the House Oversight Committee, first with the Benghazi investigation and now with the shameful attacks on FBI agents.

...in the White House itself  (Trump Conflicts of Interest and the Russian Oligarchs)
As I have said before, with the Trump administration, there are no conflicts--only interests.  I leave it to the investigative reporters to detail all the ways in which Trumpian greed intersects with Drumpfian policy (here and here are a couple of relevant links I can recommend).  The key storyline is this:  critical to the survival of the Trump enterprise, in the time around and since the Great Crater, has been the sale of high-end real estate to Russian oligarchs.  For the buyers, this was a proven safe way to get money out of Russia and into legitimate assets:  this is generally referred to as "money laundering".  It is not that the purchase of US real estate is in any way illegal; it's more where the money came from that is shady and that makes these buyers shady.  Most are connected with the regime of Putin, the biggest oligarch/money launderer of them all.

So, Trump Org.  finds them good to do business with, and he isn't going to turn on these "friends"; instead he becomes an apologist for Russian provocations.  He seems to have no problem with Putin's agenda item of trying to weaken the West and their alliances, as America's allies have snubbed Russia and coddled the Ukraine, which has gone back and forth but is currently antagonistic toward Russia.  For its part, Russia has found Ukraine a suitable target for its expansion and disruption efforts.

Meanwhile, the Trump offspring are free to make hay from their political connection to the President, and they will make the most of it while they can.  Other Trump cronies, like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, are wealthy enough, but still encouraged to find an angle to benefit if they so choose.

The Russia/Trump collusion to help the Republican win the 2016 election was just business:  there was no intention to betray the US or even to break laws, just that there might have been a few statutory limitations that got in the way.   Russian hacking of Democratic databases, and infiltration of Facebook, are only standard practice, the illegal parts generally deniable or protected by national boundaries, and the only interruption in the activity will be to build new cover when necessary.

This is what is going on; the only remedy seems to be the will of voters to defeat Drumpfites, if it can be mustered, this year and then again in 2020.   All of what I say here will come out eventually (even without the Trump tax returns, though those will likely become part of the story), but I have no confidence at all that it will sway Republican voters, Republican legislators, or Republican judges from their great partisan suck-up to this petty dictator.


*Over 200 emails asking for money on June 30--every single one referring to their second-quarter deadline at midnight.  When will they learn that I don't care about their deadlines?  In fact, I would prefer to have lower numbers come out of those deadline reports from the Federal Election Commission, in order to reduce the dollar arms race.