Where, O Where, Has Matt Whitaker Gone?

Feds Investigating Trump Inauguration for Alleged Bribery and Embezzlement

President Trump is facing so many criminal investigations it’s difficult to keep track of them all. The latest, revealed late Thursday by The Wall Street Journal, is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan is probing Trump’s Inauguration. The investigation reportedly centers on two alleged crimes: embezzlement and trading money for favors.

If the Acting Attorney General wants to protect Trump from the investigators, he’s really doing a piss-poor job of it, isn’t he?

The Spiro Agnew Solution

Spiro Agnew, facing deep legal doodoo, made a deal in 1973 to resign from office in exchange for no prosecution for bribery and related offenses.

The new House may or may not impeach Trump. Even if they do impeach him, at this point it looks as the Senate would not convict him and remove him from office.

Prosecutors may or may not try to indict Trump while he is in office. If they do try, then whoever is running the Justice Department may not let them bring an indictment.

These are risks, but the biggest risk of all is that Trump loses reelection in 2020, and that on January 21, 2021, he’s hit with sixty-‘leven criminal indictments.

If my name were Donald J. Trump, the Spiro Agnew option would begin to be looking mighty good right about now.

Implementing the Spiro Agnew Solution

Continuing the speculation laid out in prior posts, I think that William P. Barr, Esquire, is coming to Washington to get that deal done.

The Curious Incident of Matt Whitaker in the Nighttime

Curious Incident

Rien, Nada, Bupkis, Diddlysquat

Between them, the Special Counsel and the S.D.N.Y. prosecutors are busy little bees. They appear to have lots of things going on. As of Thursday morning, two areas of inquiry are coming into clearer focus: (1) conspiracy by Trump and others to pay hush money to Trump’s harem, to keep them from getting into the headlines before the election, and (2) conspiracy to lie to Congress in a coordinated fashion, about Russia and other matters.

The recently-appointed Acting Attorney General, one Matthew Whitaker, has a resume that shows him to be a lightweight, a Trump lickspittle, and a bottom-feeding fraudster.

Reasoning from the relevant facts and circumstances, one might reasonably infer that he was appointed to high office, well beyond his depth, for the precise purpose of keeping the federal prosecutors from doing what they are now doing to Trump’s family and close associates.

But what, in fact, has Acting Attorney General Whitaker actually done to thwart the prosecutors?

As far as one can tell, the answer would be rien, nada, bupkis, diddlysquat.

Or, perhaps he has done, is doing, or plans to do something behind the scenes to serve his master and thwart the prosecutors. But evidence of any such activity is entirely missing. And, if he were doing anything at all to bestir himself on Trump’s behalf, I think the press would have got wind of it.

On the face of things, whatever his disabilities, Mr. Whitaker is not lacking in the self-preserving sense that God gave him, realizes his legal risk, and is not going to lift a finger for Trump.

Trump’s Pecker Turns State’s Evidence

7p EBOF Clean with CC

Publisher of the National Enquirer admits to hush-money payments made on Trump’s behalf

A ‘loud gong’: National Enquirer’s surprise deal could imperil Trump: The National Enquirer’s parent company has agreed to tell prosecutors everything it knows about Donald Trump — and it might know a lot.

Sorry about the vulgar headline. Sometimes you can’t help yourself. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

Donald and Chuck and Nancy


“During this negotiation, Schumer’s main strategic contribution was trying not to laugh. He was largely unsuccessful.

“If Schumer was playing three-dimensional chess, the game was won as he slowly contemplated his first move while his opponent stuffed his pieces into his own mouth and choked to death.”

Get Him Outta There!


Just read this, which nicely complements my observation that there must be a plot afoot to get him the hell offstage:

Trump’s Catastrophic Meeting with Chuck and Nancy

Keep in mind that the entire reason that Schumer and Pelosi were invited to this meeting is because Trump needs their help to keep the government open. He cannot rely on only Republican votes in either the House or the Senate. He started out on the right foot by praising bipartisan cooperation on criminal justice reform and the Farm Bill, but then everything quickly fell apart because he decided to repeat lies in front of an audience that was simply not going to countenance his mendacity.

So, not only did Trump ruin any chance he had at getting anywhere in the negotiations, but he also completely lost the battle over who would be blamed if the negotiations broke down. And, in the process, he gave another example to Senate Republicans of why they do not want him in the White House one day longer than is necessary.

A Mystery Barr None

William Barr

Trump has blasted Mueller’s team for political donations. But attorney general nominee William P. Barr has given more than $500,000.

How Trump’s Next Attorney General Could Derail the Mueller Probe: In 1992, William Barr recommended pardons that some saw as a cover-up to protect the president. Critics fear more of the same if he’s confirmed.

No one wants to be Trump’s chief of staff. For much the same reason, logically, no one—especially, no one qualified for the job—should want to be Trump’s next Attorney General. Yet William P. Barr, Esquire, himself a former Attorney General, aspires to the position.

In a previous post, I argued that there is something wrong with this picture. I argued that William P. Barr, Esquire, has something up his sleeve.

As to what he has up his sleeve: logic would tell us that it’s either a plan to protect Trump, or a plan to ease him out of the way in favor of President Pence. So which is it?

The Politico article, cited above, has lots of interesting information and makes the case, sort of, that Barr, who helped George H.W. Bush pardon his way out of the Iran-Contra scandal, is here now to reprise his act and get Donald Trump off the hook.

All that might be true. And if it is true, then I will have been proven wrong in my suspicions. But I don’t think so.

Unlike a senatorial empty suit—take John Kyle as a good example—Barr is not a modestly affluent spokesman for the rich and powerful, i.e., a well-paid towel boy in the brothel. No, William P. Barr, Esquire, has risen to become part of the rich and powerful, the kind of people who get the John Kyle’s of the world to do their bidding.

Together, Mr. Barr and his wife, a homemaker, have given about three quarters of a million dollars to Republican candidates. Clearly, they have lots of money. They do not need the Attorney General’s salary, which turns out to be $205,700 per annum.

In 2016, Barr gave the Trump campaign $2,700. Chump change to buy a seat at the table, if needed. But before that, he had given $55,000 to Jeb Bush’s political action committee.

On the evidence, Barr is an establishment guy, not a Trump guy.

And what about the fact, emphasized in the Politico article, that Barr has had negative things to say about the Mueller investigation?

Well, you could take that information at face value.

Or you could speculate that was all part of a long simmering plot to inveigle Trump into embracing someone whose mission in life would be to consign Trump to the dustbin of history.

Sunning Their Livers, Making Silly Arguments

sunning their livers

My father loved to speak in homespun metaphors. For him, “sunning your liver” meant engaging in incessant, mindless chit-chat. I think it’s a fine turn of phrase.

This afternoon, I wish to protest that far too many talking heads are talking nonsense. I know this sounds as if I think I am smarter than everyone else. Not so. But my desire to avoid the appearance of arrogance is overtaken by the need to call bullshit where I see it.

“It’s Highly Debatable Whether a Sitting President Can Be Indicted”

No, ladies and germs, that proposition is not legitimately debatable at all. It should be  obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence that there are foreseeable circumstances in which an incumbent president would and should be subject to indictment. The point is so obvious, as an abstract matter, that even to pretend it’s debatable is to insult your own intelligence.

That said, whether or not it’s sensible and prudent to indict a particular president for a particular crime is a matter of judgment and discretion. Just as legitimate prosecutorial discretion should come into play in deciding whether the indict someone who cleans bathrooms for a living.

“Someone Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Steal an Election Through Election Law Violations and Then Cite His Incumbency as a Defense”

Righty-ho, as an abstract proposition.

But the truth of the abstract proposition does not in any way prove the accuracy of this concrete proposition:

“Trump Stole the Election by Paying Off Loose Women, Thus Concealing His Adulterous Affairs”

No, friends, given what was known of Trump’s character and behavior by the November, 2016, election, not a single, solitary vote would have changed even if twenty bishops had sworn they saw Trump paying hush money to Karen and Stormy, two financially motivated, large-breasted, middle aged women who had consensual sex with The Donald.

Trump’s voters did not give a tinker’s damn that he bragged of sexual assault—a very different proposition than consensual sex for money—or that 11 women came forward to charge him with sexual assault. They would not have cared about Stormy and Karen.

“But Trump Thought the Voters Might Care about the Tuties, So He Committed a Criminal Campaign Violation by Organizing the Payoffs”

Could well be true. And the boys and girls in the New York federal prosecutors office might even be able to persuade a jury to accept this view of Trump’s mental state as true beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are very anxious to indict Trump, so an indictment is inevitable.”

No, it isn’t. Whoever is running the Justice Department would need to approve.

But that raises an interesting point. If the boys and girls over at the Southern District of New York prosecutors office are hot to trot—and that certainly appears to be the case—and if permission is denied, then, won’t they be hot to indict their boss for exercising his powers in a corrupt manner?

The answer is: yes, they will.

William P. Barr, Esquire, is the kind of person who will have reasoned all this through. I don’t think he plans to get caught in a trap.

I reiterate that the man and his confederates have something up their sleeve.