I try to be upfront about the fact I’m clinically depressed and anxious and under treatment for it but am not so badly disabled I require medication. If you met me at some random and brief length of time you wouldn’t know unless I told you.

I understand quite well what an anxiety (they used to call it panic) attack feels like for me. I get dizzy and unbalanced with a profound sensation of falling and an overwhelming urge to flee which I can mostly overcome but sometimes not. I don’t run away mind you, a stately amble is about all I can muster, but my mind is consumed with plans and actions to get out of the situation and find someplace to hide and calm down.

My clinical anxiety is entirely irrational, but there are real things that concern me like the decline of Civil Liberty and Freedom in the United states and the Rise of Economic Inequality. It’s important to know the difference.

The Internet is a great breeding ground of irrational anxieties and Conspiracy Theories, consider the anti-Vax movement (Here’s a gun. Go kill the rest of your family and yourself. It will be quicker and more merciful than the lingering death you propose and won’t make me sick too.). One of the latest and most ridiculous is ‘Deep Fakes’, simulations and edits so subtle as to be undetectable.

You ever see Rogue One?

Now given the essence of theater is willing suspension of disbelief the tolerance for guys wearing masks and playing women is totally understandable and the best they could do at the time. Yet modern audiences are sensitive and skeptical of trips to what is called ‘uncanny valley’, the computerized simulation of Actors.

And they don’t do it very well. Why do you think Andy Serkis has a job?

Rogue One had Disney/Lucasfilm money behind it and was top of the line CGI with the best and most expensive software and hardware available with the highest priced and most talented and experienced Artists in Cinema and that was the best they could do. Impressed?

The concept that some 400 pound Bozo in his Mom’s basement using Dad’s old Dell and freeware (because who wants to spend $10s of thousands when there’s plenty of stuff that works good enough for a TV Studio) can fabricate recordings any better.

The problem is ‘good enough’ isn’t in this context. It’s like self driving cars, a problem that will never be solved. Still, you can build a Roomba, it operates on a different concept and doesn’t seek to duplicate.

And ‘good enough’ is. Using tools that were current in Gutenberg’s day it’s absurdly easy to spread lies and slander with sufficient credibility. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth puts it’s shoes on,” Twain. False documents didn’t magically appear with the computer, they’ve been around a long time. Compare and contrast Rudy Giuliani waving around printouts of 4chan Conspiracies and his cell phone and Joe McCarthy doing practically the same thing in the 50s.

Heed the lessons of Marx (Karl, not Groucho)- The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

Cody’s Showdy

On the night of August 9, 1997, the police were called and several officers from the 70th Precinct were dispatched to the scene where Abner Louima and other men had got involved in a fight between two females in Club Rendez-Vous, a popular nightclub in East Flatbush, Brooklyn. Police, supporters, and various people all became involved in the fight outside the club. Police officers Justin Volpe, Charles Schwarz, Thomas Bruder, and Thomas Wiese, and others responded to the scene. In the ongoing altercation, Volpe said that Louima had attacked him. Louima was charged with disorderly conduct, obstructing government administration, and resisting arrest. Later, Volpe admitted his accusation about Louima being his assailant was false.

On the ride to the station, the arresting officers beat Louima with their fists, nightsticks, and hand-held police radios. On arriving at the station house, they had Louima strip-searched and put in a holding cell. The beating continued later, culminating with Louima being sexually assaulted in a bathroom at the 70th Precinct station house in Brooklyn. Volpe kicked Louima in the testicles, and while Louima’s hands were cuffed behind his back, he first grabbed onto and squeezed his testicles and then sexually assaulted him with a broken broomstick. According to trial testimony, Volpe walked through the precinct holding the bloody, excrement-stained instrument in his hand, bragging to a police sergeant that he “took a man down tonight.”

Louima’s teeth were also badly damaged in the attack when the broom handle was jammed into his mouth. He testified that a second officer in the bathroom helped Volpe in the assault but could not positively identify him. The identity of the second attacker became a point of serious contention during the trial and appeals. Louima also initially claimed that the officers involved in the attack called him a racial slur and shouted, “This is Giuliani-time” during the beating.

I don’t doubt it for an instant. Rudy Giuliani is even more repellent and loathsome than the above story indicates. The reason the NYPD Emergency Command Center was located in the World Trade Center? So that Rudy could sneak out with his secretary and have a quick ‘nooner’ at lunch. Yes sir, that’s America’s Mayor.

His recent japes and antics have been hard to miss unless you watch only Cartoons and ‘Tween Comedies as I do so I’ll assume a certain familiarity for the purposes of this piece which is to draw attention to a little “thought experiment” by Barbara McQuade and Joyce Vance, both former U.S. Attorneys.

United States of America v. Rudolph W. Giuliani
by Barbara McQuade and Joyce Vance, Just Security
October 24, 2019

While the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued legal opinions that a sitting president cannot be indicted, there is no similar prohibition on indicting a president’s personal lawyer or other potential co-conspirators involved in committing a federal crime. Based on facts already in the public record, we believe that Rudolph Giuliani could be indicted now for conspiracy to interfere with the fair administration of elections, conspiracy to commit bribery, and contempt of Congress. Below is what an indictment of Giuliani might look like if it were drafted today.

It’s important to note that we are, to some degree, speculating here. We are considering charges that could be brought against Giuliani, using publicly available information. Prosecutors obviously don’t do this. They use only evidence that they are confident is correct and that they believe will be admissible in court. And their sense of the evidence will be more nuanced that what is publicly available. Nonetheless, with so much information now available, it is helpful to understand the seriousness of Giuliani’s conduct by seeing how it lines up to the crimes proscribed by the federal criminal code and whether there is evidence of criminality in what Ambassador Bill Taylor called the “irregular channel>” for conducting foreign policy in Ukraine that involved Giuliani and others. (Taylor, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, currently heads the U.S. embassy in Ukraine as Chief of Mission.)

The three counts we outline represent just the crimes that could be proven by the public record alone. No doubt, if Giuliani is under investigation, prosecutors would want to probe additional potential crimes relating to his role, if any, in the recent campaign finance scheme charged against his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. It is entirely possible, but not yet clear, that some or all of those counts could be superseded to add Giuliani as a defendant. Prosecutors would also want to consider whether Giuliani was acting as an unregistered foreign agent in violation of the law when, as reported, he asked then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to intervene in the criminal prosecution of Reza Zarrab, a Turkey-based businessman, for money laundering and violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Of course, a grand jury investigation related to the allegations we focus on here could uncover additional aggravating or mitigating facts that would inform potential charges against Giuliani. Prosecutors would likely use grand jury subpoenas and court orders to obtain Giuliani’s bank records and income tax returns to identify his sources of income and movement of money. Prosecutors would also interview individuals with knowledge of Giuliani’s activity, perhaps including some of the same former and current State Department officials who have been testifying before Congress.

In addition, prosecutors could offer cooperation deals to Parnas and Fruman, as well as to their less visible co-defendants David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin. If they were to promise to plead guilty to their crimes and provide truthful and comprehensive information, prosecutors could offer to make that information known to the sentencing judge and recommend a reduction in their sentences. Prosecutors would then work to corroborate the testimony of the cooperators, whose testimony is subject to skepticism because of the benefit they receive in exchange. If their testimony can be supported by the testimony of other witnesses or documents, such as phone or bank records, then they could be used as important narrators to the case that is presented at trial against Giuliani.

Only after the entire investigation of Giuliani is complete would prosecutors decide whether to charge, and if so, which violations to include in an indictment. We do so here without the benefit of facts known only to investigators and protected by grand jury secrecy rules. There could be mitigating facts or defenses that are not publicly known that would cause us to decline to file charges. And, as with any indictment, a defendant is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.

When making charging decisions, prosecutors ask not only whether a crime has been committed, but whether a substantial federal interest would be advanced by filing charges. We believe that the charges contained here represent a substantial federal interest. An individual who conspires to inject foreign interference into a U.S. election attacks the very heart of democracy. Our laws prohibit foreign influence in our elections because our founding fathers believed that only American citizens should decide who holds public office in the United States, and we recognize that foreign governments and their citizens act in their own interests, not ours. Criminal cases are prosecuted for several reasons, including deterring illegal conduct, promoting respect for the rule of law, and protecting public safety. A prosecution here would advance all of these important goals.

A few observations on the charge for contempt of Congress deserve mention. Giuliani’s refusal to comply with a subpoena for documents, which was issued by the three House Committees conducting the impeachment inquiry, is a criminal offense. In a letter to the Committees, Giuliani stated that he would not comply with the subpoena because it is part of an “unconstitutional, baseless and illegitimate ‘impeachment inquiry.’” Witnesses may challenge the scope of a subpoena as harassing, oppressive or overly broad by filing a motion to quash in court. They may not simply ignore the subpoena and defy Congress’s authority as one of three co-equal branches of government. The Constitution gives the power of impeachment to the House, and allows it to fashion its own rules for handling impeachment. There is no requirement that the full House take a vote before it may begin an impeachment inquiry, and the House has the authority to investigate any matter on which it may act, including impeachment. Giuliani’s conduct violates the federal criminal statute prohibiting witnesses from defying subpoenas issued by Congress or its committees. A subpoenaed witness before Congress can no more ignore a subpoena than can a witness in a federal trial. To permit individuals to selectively ignore such legal processes because they don’t want to comply, no matter who they are and who they represent, is a slippery slope to a lawless society.

However, before a U.S. Attorney may charge a witness with contempt of Congress, the contempt statute requires the completion of certain technical steps. The Committees must report the failure of the witness to comply with the subpoena to the House and the Speaker of the House, who must then certify the statement of facts regarding the failure to comply to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Two final thoughts about the form of the mock indictment that follows.

If this were an actual indictment, many of the names would be replaced with generic identifiers, such as Candidate-1 or Company-A. The Justice Department requires this practice to protect the reputations of individuals and entities that are not charged with any crimes. A jury is told the identities of these individuals and entities at trial. We have left the names in the indictment, however, for clarity for readers. We refer to President Donald Trump as Individual-1, an unindicted co-conspirator.

At paragraph 2, we describe Giuliani as an agent as well as an attorney for Individual-1 to make it clear that not all of their communications will be protected by the attorney-client privilege. This privilege is limited to communications between a lawyer and client for the purposes of obtaining legal advice, and does not protect communications regarding an ongoing scheme to commit a crime or fraud. Nor does it protect communications that have been divulged to others.

They follow with a draft of the formal document in the proper format but the typography is tricky on a computer with a proportionally spaced font though it’s a piece of cake on a typewriter. If you’re interested in that sort of thing I invite you to click through.

To bottom line it you know by now that Moscow Mitch and Lily Livered Lindsey’s Senate Resolution (non binding because it’s blatantly unConstitutional and historically the House doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the Senate thinks about it’s procedures- piss up a rope!) condemning the rules the House is using to conduct it’s investigation of Unindicted Co-conspirator Bottomless Pinocchio as “Unconstitutional” even though they were the ones instituted in 2015 by the Republican Majority House under former Leader and current Marijuana Spokesperson John Boehner for Trey Gowdy’s investigation of Hillary Clinton and Benghazi (BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!!!).

Kharma’s a bitch dudes.

Anyway Napping Turtle McConnell didn’t count the votes so good this time (though maybe he did but felt he had to do it anyway) and he lost 46 – 54.

I will remind you right up front that all this procedural stuff is utterly irrelevant-

Unindicted Co-conspirator Bottomless Pinocchio solicited a Campaign contribution from a Foreign Government. That is illegal because it breaks Campaign Finance Law. It’s also Unconstitutional because it violates the Emoluments Clause. Unindicted Co-Conspirator withheld the property of the Government who’s favor he was soliciting. This is highly Illegal, it’s called Extortion. He did so with money duly authorized by the Congress, both Houses, in a lawful appropriation authorized by his signature scrawl. This is Contempt of Congress. This is failure to uphold your Oath of Office to ensure the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

How a small number of GOP defections could doom Trump in 2020
By Paul Waldman, Washington Post
October 25, 2019

Whatever he thought he would accomplish with his resolution, Graham set up a loyalty test for the 53 Republican senators, to send a signal to the president himself and to their voters: Are you willing to stand behind Trump no matter what?

What he got was not a unanimous “Yes!” While 46 Republicans signed on, seven refused: Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander, Johnny Isakson, and Mike Enzi. It’s a revealing group.

Enzi, Isakson, and Alexander are all retiring. Murksowski has cultivated a reputation for moderation and principle, one in which opposing Trump is key to her brand (she voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act and opposed Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court). Mitt Romney has become Trump’s chief Republican critic in Congress.

And Susan Collins and Cory Garnder? They’re the two most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in 2020. And the only two representing states Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

To say they’re in a tough spot would be an understatement. In order to get reelected, they need to both hold on to their Republican voters and win over some independents and Democrats. If they turn against Trump they alienate GOP loyalists, but if they support him too slavishly they risk alienating everyone else. They may be able to duck the question for now, but come the Senate trial it will no longer be possible.

This is where you object, “But most Republicans will never abandon Trump!” Which is true. Even most of those appalled by his misdeeds know that their constituents will stick with him no matter what is revealed. There’s no margin for them in opposing him, because they represent heavily Republican districts and states.

But you don’t need a large number of Republicans to oppose Trump to have a profound impact on the 2020 election. All you need is some kind of critical mass, enough to signal to moderate Republican voters that you can still be a Republican and vote for a Democrat in 2020, or vote third party, or not vote at all.

Imagine, then, the vote that occurs after the Senate trial. By then we’ll surely know even more about all the impeachable things Trump did. All 47 Democrats vote for removal. So do Collins, Murkowski, and Romney. That makes 50. Throw in just one more — Lisa Murkowski or Lamar Alexander, or maybe another vulnerable senator like Martha McSally of Arizona — and you have a majority of the Senate voting to remove Trump, even if it’s far short of the 67 votes needed.

If that occurs, “Republicans Divided!” would become one of the big stories coming out of impeachment. As 2020 progresses, candidates like Gardner and Collins could decide, if they seem to be headed for defeat, that the only thing that will save them is full-throated opposition to Trump. The same could be true of other Republicans running for the House or governorships.

The result would be a good-sized collection of Republican candidates opposing Trump all over the country — enough to signal Republicans everywhere that defection from this president is not treason against their party.

And that would almost guarantee Trump’s defeat.

Trump believes that he got elected not by reaching across the middle but by exciting his base, so everything he says and does is meant to cultivate that base. That’s his 2020 strategy as well. For it to work, however, he needs not only to get his supporters to the polls but to keep moderate Republicans from defecting or staying home. The entire election must be seen to be as partisan as possible, so Republicans say what they did in 2016: I may not like him, but as a Republican I’m going to support him.

The flip side of Trump’s strategy of hate and fear is that it makes it impossible for any Democrats to vote for him. So if he suffers a significant number of defections among Republican voters, he’s doomed.

At this point nothing is certain; it could well be that by election day Trump’s support among Republican voters is as firm as it was in 2016. But he can ill afford to lose any Republican support. And it may already be happening.

Personally I’ve learned to trust Republicans to lie and renege. I expect that when push comes to shove each and every one of the 7 Refuseniks will vote in lockstep. They’re all doomed anyway, they can’t redeem themselves at this point from their responsibility for the current state pf affairs. All they can do is discourage their base.

But it doesn’t matter. Unindicted Co-conspirator Bottomless Pinocchio and his Cabinet of Racketeers and Criminals are breaking the law and violating the Constitution EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Allowing this behavior to stand without at least attempting accountability will destroy the Republic and it it will be a choice between fight or flee. Must admit I don’t have the throwing arm I had 60 years ago but I make up for it in guile and ruthlessness.