Loose Ends (47)

What a week. A few stray thoughts on this and that:

I’m starting to wonder whether Michael Avenatti is a deep cover Trump plant inside the left. It is pretty clear to me that Sen. Susan Collins was deeply offended at the way Democrats rolled out their last minute smear of Kavanaugh, and the preposterous Avenatti charges of a “rape gang” was a key turning point. Robbie Soave of Reason comments:

Democrats, the left, and various other anti-Kavanaugh persons can thank attorney Michael Avenatti for this outcome, at least in part. . .  Swetnick undermined the believe-all-women position with her story, and Avenatti helped her by pushing it to the forefront of the news cycle. . . This very well may have been a gift to those who were looking for cover to vote for Kavanaugh.

UPDATE (4:30 pm Eastern time): CNN reports this:

Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh

 . . . “Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights,” a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. “His involvement set us back, absolutely.”

A Democratic senator, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, said: “Not helpful at all. . .”

Who would have thought, two weeks ago, that the GOP champions in this crazy hour would be . . . Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins?

• Here’s a CNN headline and news story I never thought I’d see:

President Donald Trump’s Winning Streak

(CNN)—Donald Trump may have never had a better time being President.

Only a re-election party on the night of November 3, 2020, could possibly offer the same vindication for America’s most unconventional commander in chief as the 36 hours in which two foundational strands of his political career are combining in a sudden burst of history. . .

There is more evidence than the soon-to-be reshaped Supreme Court and the roaring economy to make a case that Trump is building a substantial presidency that in many ways looks like a historic pivot point, despite its extremely controversial nature.

Largely unnoticed in the Washington imbroglio over sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, the Trump administration is engineering significant changes at home and abroad that often represent sharp revisions of direction from traditional American positions. . .

[I]t’s also no longer possible to credibly argue — despite the distracting blizzard of controversy, busted decorum and staff chaos constantly lashing Washington — that there is not something significant taking place that is changing the political and economic character of the nation itself.

Trump said we’d get tired of all the winning, but I’m not tired yet.

Now Psychology Today jumps on the grievance studies scandal, in a Lee Jussim article entitled “Intellectual Corruption and Peer Review.” Worth a quick read.

One last thought on Lindsey Graham’s attack last week on the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee. If you watch this CNN broadcast of it, at various points they show a long-range cutaway where you can see Dianne Feinstein gasping at Graham’s charges. (See around 1:50, for example.) You can see the Democrats were unprepared to be called out for their outrageous behavior, though you get the sense that Feinstein would like to have interrupted and objected. Instead she seems visibly to shrink in her chair. Enjoy it once again:

• One last item: About that New York Times article on how Trump and his family manipulated valuations and used shell companies to avoid tax liability, one question: Would the Sulzberger family survive a similar investigation into their practices over the years in preserving and passing along ownership of the Times to the next generation? Think valuation and shell companies didn’t play a role in their family succession?

Also: please do the Kennedy family next. Entire forests might have to die to print that complete story.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses