Rope-a-Dope 2.0

I've speculated in the past that, when it came to the Mueller investigation, Donald Trump was playing “rope-a-dope”, by which I meant that, by not firing Mueller (which he could have done quite readily -- and legally) and by allowing the investigation to continue he was giving the opposition time to lay all of their cards out on the table. He was allowing the Deep State to slither out from under all of the rocks which are their usual hiding places and pursue their agenda in plain sight. He was allowing the FBI and the Department of Justice to, basically, stand down for two-plus years and engage in a witch hunt (or what, in a more charitable vein, is called a “snipe hunt”, to recall a favorite ruse from my Boy Scout days). He was allowing the opposition, in its many and variegated forms – including, but not limited to, the mainstream media, the “entertainment” industry, late-night TV, the Democrats/liberals/progressives, the hard-core globalists – to stand up and be counted, and to expose themselves with little fear of ever being called out or held accountable (or so they assumed).

Now, from the opposition's point of view, this was a good thing. Apparently Trump was so culpable, so guilty of countless enormities, that the best he could to was to hunker down and hope it all went away, the way people will take shelter when a tornado bears down. The problem is that after two-plus years of painstaking investigation, subpoenas, rumor, innuendo, leaks, threats, intimidation, arrests, testimony, mountains of documents, and being aided and abetted by pretty much everyone on the planet who had any sort of helpful information (its veracity being of no concern), the Mueller investigation has laid a giant goose egg when it comes to the issue of “collusion” – not Russian “interference”, which seems to be fairly well established, but actual cooperation between Trump's 2016 campaign and those ever-fearsome Russkies. (And by the way, the House Democrats think they can succeed where Mueller failed; that shows you the extent and severity of their delusional system.)

And now – or so it seems – that glowing halo has been rudely knocked off the head of the estimable Robert Mueller III (now there's a ruling elite name for you!) and he is suspected of having... well, not chickened out or sold out exactly, but of, in some mysterious way, decided that Trump – while not “exonerated”, no-no-no, surely we can't have that – cannot be proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt (another way of saying “non-impeachable”), to have won the 2016 election with the help of the left's newfound arch enemies, namely the Russians, who committed the cardinal sin of dissolving their very own empire, i.e. the Soviet, in an unforced error, and becoming, for lack of a better word, just another “fascist” country since, in the liberal world view, there are only two possible forms of government, namely socialism (good) and “fascism” (which covers everything else). For them, Russia can never be forgiven for having given up on communism, after a meager trial run of only 70+ years. After having won World War II (and I've always held that they were the only real victor in that war) and taken over half of Europe, they got cold feet. Where is Uncle Joe Stalin, who inspired so many American liberals from the New Deal on, when we really need him? From being on the right side of history for so long, Russia is suddenly declared to be on the wrong side of history, and no example is so compelling at that of having colluded with Donald Trump in 2016. So yes, there is definitely an element of “payback” in all of this – an aspect that, as far as I know, has totally escaped the attention of the commentariat all across the political spectrum. If this “collusion” had been attributed to any other country – Botswana, for example – it would have been laughed out of the Department of Justice and any other government agency populated with even half-sane people. But the “fact” that it was Russia – the new enemy of the left and a traitor to the cause of human freedom, fairness, and justice – gave it not only credibility but an air of near-certainty. The verdict was in, in other words – and it was Mueller & Co.'s job to simply build up the case to the point where impeachment was not only called for, but demanded, for the good of the Republic. (Impeachment is always possible, but it's not always politically advisable. A favorable finding by Mueller & Co. would have been a political gold mine.)

But as it happens, the collusion issue turned into a nothingburger, as the saying goes, which left the opposition, basically, naked as jaybirds, with no place to hide. Except! They have – and in fact had, all along – a Plan B, which was to pretty much say, to quote Emily Litella, “never mind” when it came to collusion, but to turn on a dime and declare that their campaign, all along, was focused on “obstruction of justice” – which is another term for “a president exercising his Constitutionally-granted privileges”.

So now we are seeing a full court press for obstruction of justice, which will inevitably (once again) create fertile grounds for impeachment – although, as I've said previously, since impeachment is a political, not legal, exercise, no particular “grounds” are required – “high crimes and misdemeanors” meaning, basically, whatever the opposition says they mean (another of many examples where the Constitution left things ambiguous in order to force people to exercise reason and common sense – a fond hope on the part of the Founding Fathers, which has turned out, in our day, to have been naive at best).

So if “collusion” was Plan A, and it didn't bear fruit, then surely Plan B (obstruction of justice) will save the day! But, how do we know that Trump, who succeeded so admirably with his strategy vis-a-vis the Mueller investigation into collusion, isn't playing another game of rope-a-dope when it comes to obstruction of justice? Let's say the entire Mueller report is unredacted, and the opposition descends on its every minute detail like flies on you-know-what. And let's say they try to make a case (although, as I said, they don't really need to make any sort of “case” in order to proceed with impeachment). And let's say that it winds up in court this time. They might lose again! Which would, basically, reduce the rationale for impeachment down to the level of Trump's hair, his complexion, his speaking style, his wife's outfits, his business dealings (which seemed to work perfectly well in New York), his time spent playing golf (that most deadly of deadly sins on the part of any Republican president), and so on. If the collapse of the collusion myth has left the opposition exposed as schemers, plotters, and subversives, what would the collapse of an obstruction of justice myth do? Cause them damage when it comes to the 2020 election, perhaps? But they aren't thinking about that, because hope springs eternal (you know, “hope and change” and all that). This time it has to work. It just has to! Because the alternative is simply too dreadful to contemplate – not just Trump surviving the balance of his first term (which Nancy Pelosi seems more or less resigned to permitting), but – gasp! – running for a second term, and maybe even – gasp! – winning!

But while it can be said that the Democrats and their facilitators have not yet learned a lesson, the same may not be true of the Republicans. I described their discontent in a previous post (“Tired... So Very Tired...”, Dec. 8), and I don't see that much has changed. They are old, tired, and worn out; they are sick of living at ground zero and having to fight trench warfare (or at least put up with it); they have been forced to either defend Trump or oppose him in a half-hearted way ever since he took office, and it goes totally against the grain. It's just not the way they're used to doing business. They never asked for Trump, they never really supported him in the 2016 election, they were rendered extremely uncomfortable when he won, and they've been that way ever since. When one of Trump's core supporters asks (on the Internet or elsewhere), “Tired of winning yet?” their answer is “Yes! We are tired of winning, and we want things to go back to the way they used to be before this... this 'thing' rose up out of the Hudson River and descended on Washington.”

So now is when it gets interesting. We have two converging vectors – impeachment (or not, but don't depend on Old Nancy to get her way, not in the face of all the young radicals straight out of the ranks of the Red Guard) on the one hand, and Trump's optimism vis-a-vis the 2020 election on the other hand. Or – maybe that too is just a ruse. Trump could very well get on TV, in the best LBJ tradition, sometime early in 2020, and say that he's had it – that he tried, he did his best, but the opposition was just too intense, and why waste four more years of his life trying to get anything done in Washington when no one would allow him to move a muscle in his first term. (If a president isn't permitted to defend our national borders, everything else is detail.) He could do this, and it would be saving face in a sense – not being forced out of office but leaving voluntarily. (He may already be planning to do this, but lots of luck finding out, despite the notoriously leaky White House. He has to keep up, for the time being and for all sorts of reasons, his image of being determined to run again.)

Or, the obstruction of justice witch hunt could bear no more fruit than the collusion witch hunt has done, and Trump could emerge triumphant, re-energized along with his base. But will his 2020 base be as formidable as his 2016 base? Hillary Clinton was surprised, as were her supporters, at just how many “deplorables” were out there in flyover country – and that they were actually willing and able to knuckle-drag to the polls and vote. Will they be as numerous, and as willing, in 2020? And how about support from the Republican Party? They are old and tired, remember. They might prefer to have a less controversial candidate, albeit one who is guaranteed to lose, in 2020 – in which case they will have to pull off their own coup, taking a page from Hillary's play book when it came to Bernie Sanders, to keep Trump from being nominated for a second term, regardless of how the primaries turn out (assuming there even are Republican primaries – this is not a legal requirement, remember).

So really – if you thought the last two-plus years have been interesting, that was just Act One – the preliminaries. Right now, in the most basic terms, it's a race to the 2020 elections between Trump and the opposition – but the opposition has developed fault lines, and who knows how Trump is going to feel after another year of trench warfare? Hang on, it's gonna be a ride.