Jul.23

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

Dead Men Tell No Tales, But a Live Woman Might Tell One or Two

Richard Nixon was a considerably more savvy politician than Donald Trump, and yet could not make Watergate go away. That makes us wonder whether Trump, even if he is the Dear Leader, really might have bit off more than he can chew with this Jeffrey Epstein business. In any event, here's the Epsteinwater news from yesterday:

• Wait a Minute, He Had an Accomplice... Who's in Federal Custody!: It was really only a matter of time before someone said "Why don't we ask Ghislaine Maxwell about this?" And that day has come. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche posted this message to eX-Twitter yesterday:

  Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At @AGPamBondi's direction, I've contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law—and no lead is off-limits.

  Clearly, the promise to release a bunch of heavily edited grand jury testimony did not move the needle, and so this is the administration's new plan for performing "transparency."
  
  We honestly cannot imagine a scenario in which an interview with Maxwell, conducted by someone with a vested interest in protecting Trump, puts this story to rest. Let us begin by keeping in mind that Maxwell is a known sleazeball who is willing to violate both the law and morality with impunity in service of her own personal ends. Blanche is not much better. So, if he comes out of the interview and announces "Ms. Maxwell has agreed to testify about the evil deeds committed by 2, or 3, or 6, or 10 Democrats!" is anyone going to believe this is anything other than a corrupt bargain? Even the Marge Greenes of the world won't buy it, we think, especially since what the conspiracists want is documents (or better yet, photos or videos), not the words of someone with an obvious agenda.
  
  Alternatively, if Maxwell has nothing to offer, and Blanche announces "Ms. Maxwell has no insights, I am afraid," nobody is going to buy that either—certainly not the conspiracists. And, of course, if Maxwell fingers Trump, there is zero chance that Blanche is going to share that information. In fact, what he would do in that circumstance is announce: "Ms. Maxwell has no insights, I am afraid." What that means is that if he DOES come out and announce "Ms. Maxwell has no insights, I am afraid," whether that is truthful or not, everyone is going to interpret that as meaning "She pointed the finger at Trump."
  
  The only way in which Maxwell's remarks could be deemed remotely trustworthy is if she is interviewed by someone who is neutral; either a state or federal prosecutor not appointed by Trump, or some sort of referee appointed by a federal judge, or maybe a reliable journalist like Maggie Haberman. If Blanche does the job, then he's just wasting everyone's time.
  
  
• Drip, Drip, Drip: Recall that the Watergate scandal unfolded over something like 18 months. That's a pretty long time, particularly given how short American attention spans tend to be. A big part of what made that possible is that there were new revelations on a near-daily basis, most obviously from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post, but also from many other reporters (and political insiders) who wanted to make a name for themselves, or who otherwise had something they were looking to accomplish.
  
  While we cannot say how long it will last, we have certainly arrived at the "drip, drip, drip" phase of the Epstein story. Yesterday, CNN published photos of Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples (the first time that such photos have been made public, according to the outlet), as well as video footage of Trump and Epstein palling around at various events. Meanwhile, a video from 1991, first published by The Guardian, has reemerged. It shows Trump judging—and, to be blunt, leering at—a bunch of 14-year-old girls in swimsuits, as part of a modeling competition.
  
  We would say that these photos and videos do not reveal anything about Trump that we did not already know. However, they do serve to keep the Epstein story in the headlines, and splashed across social media, for another day. Further, if anyone was skeptical about Trump's proclivities, the material certainly helps affirm the impressions that: (1) he was VERY chummy with Epstein, and (2) he finds underage girls attractive.
  
  
• But, Obama!: Trump is still desperately hanging on to the notion that he can somehow rally the troops around their shared hatred of Barack Obama (and, as a bonus, Hillary Clinton). When a reporter asked about Todd Blanche's plans to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump replied:

  He's a very talented person. He's very smart. I didn't know that they were going to do it. I don't really follow that too much. It's sort of a witch hunt. Just a continuation of the witch hunt. The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold...
  
  You know, when we caught Hillary Clinton, I said, "You know what? Let's not go too far here. It's the ex-wife of a president," and I thought it was sort of terrible. And I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did. But it's time to start after what they did to me and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people.
  
  Obama's been caught directly. So people say, "Oh, you know, a group." It's not a group, it is Obama. His orders are on the paper. The papers are signed. The papers came right out of their office. They sent everything to be highly classified. Well, the highly classified has been released. And what they did in 2016 and in 2020 is very criminal. It's criminal at the highest level. So that's really the things you should be talking about. I know nothing about the other, but I think it's appropriate that they do go.

  Is there anyone who believes Trump's claims that he's not following this story very closely? C'mon. And does anyone believe he took "mercy" on Hillary Clinton because she was once First Lady? C'mon, again. Meanwhile, Barack Obama may still be Black and Democratic, but he's been out of office for close to 10 years. He just doesn't inflame the base's passions the way he used to. The same is true of Clinton, who hasn't been a national figure for at least 5 years. And all of this is before we note that the claims being made are nonsensical, which would be true even if Trump's remarks weren't a word salad.
  
  Incidentally, Obama almost always chooses not to engage, because there's little upside. But he broke that rule, in this case, making a statement yesterday, through a spokesman, that:

  Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.

  We don't see anything there we disagree with.
  
  
• Government Shutdown: No, not that kind of shutdown. That kind can't happen until October 1, at the earliest.
  
  What we mean is that the executive branch is now completely tied in knots by the Epstein mess, and now, the legislative branch is, too. The Senate is still going to work through the end of the week, but the House has recessed, so as to avoid any chance that a Democrat, or Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), or one of the other Republicans who has said they want a vote on the Epstein files, will find a way to force a vote on a bill, or an amendment.
  
  Massie responded by insisting that this is "not going away," and said that he will eventually bring a resolution to the floor of the House, even if he has to wait until September. Since Massie is one of the handful of Republicans who does not tend to always chicken out, and since he loathes Donald Trump, it's reasonable to think this is not just hot air.

We're not so sure the idea of moving the vote on Epstein to September was truly a brilliant move. Politicians tend to think short term, but 5 or 6 weeks is really short. The current House is 219R, 212D with four vacancies. On Sept. 9, there will be a special election in VA-11 that James Walkinshaw (D) is almost certain to win. On Sept. 23, there will be a special election in AZ-07 that Adelita Grijalva (D) is almost certain to win. By Sept. 25 or so, the House will be 219R, 214D. On a discharge petition to force a vote on Epstein, Massie will vote with the Democrats, making it effectively 218R, 215D. If just two Republicans defect, the discharge petition will pass and by September, enough House members may have heard enough from their constituents to be willing to force a vote.

In the end, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and many other Republicans in Congress are hoping that Trump will save them by somehow satiating the wolves between now and September 2. Meanwhile, Trump is hoping that half-measures like the Maxwell interview, along with the fact that Congress will be out of town for a month-plus, will cause the story to eventually die down. We suspect that all involved will be disappointed. And keep in mind that even if things die down in August, the story could come roaring right back to life once, say, Massie gets his resolution to the floor of the House. There were definitely a few one or two-week periods during the Watergate saga where the story moved to the back burner, only to come right back once there was more news.

Incidentally, Bill Kristol had an interesting piece yesterday about why you should hope this story does not just go away. It's not because it could mean Trump's downfall (although Kristol does note that would be a good outcome), it's because in democracies, misbehaving leaders cannot disappear their bad behavior. In autocracies, aided by fawning underlings and a pliant and/or silenced press establishment, they can. And so, Kristol observes: "The Epstein coverup will be an indicator of how far we are down the road to authoritarianism. The success of such a coverup would take us much further down that road." (Z)