Far less paper to cut into the foundation of his malAdministration, but hopefully the digital termites will do an adequate job …
(One of my two favorite books on Watergate. The other is a book by a team from the London Sunday Times: while it ends at the time the Senate Select Committee adjourned for the summer in 1973, it provides a wealth of background information on the atmosphere that created the Plumbers — including the Ellsberg burglary — and the origins of the coverup, and thus bookends Breslin nicely.)
I wasn’t thinking of Trump’s voters but of Trump’s enablers in Congress and in the Cabinet. As the indictments for criminal conduct pile up, those who care about their reputations will become more uneasy about defending the criminal. As they calculate the wind blows, they will sway…and if they calculate that they’re better off with him gone, then he will have to go.
Yes, white supremacists will never stop supporting Trump (unless, as I’ve said elsewhere, he joins Black Lives Matter). Those who voted for him thinking he was a Smart Businessman who would Drain the Swamp, will continue to support him to avoid having to admit they made a mistake. And those enablers-with-power I mentioned in the last paragraph, who know they are complicit in crimes that could put them away, will go on supporting him.
But not every Republican in Congress–and not even every Cabinet member–participated in Trump’s crimes. A lot of them will become willing to denounce him if the list of indictments gets too long–always providing that such an action fits their calculations of their own self-interest.
Funny how the Democratic Party leadership continues to support funding for border security, but somehow opposes the mindless and useless rhetoric that is “WALL.”
POTUS has made it clear that he will keep the government shut down, not over better security, but over a “big, beautiful wall.” Possibly made of concrete, possibly steel slats. Maybe it’s a fence. Mexico will pay for it, unless they won’t, in which case we’ll pay for it one way or another, and he can totally find the money for it already, but he needs $5b for it. Whatever it is. Regardless of it’s actual potential efficacy.
I totally understand the impulse to reframe this as being about “border security.” That’s certainly how the Republican Party is trying to approach it, perhaps as a way to distance themselves from a loony without actually upsetting him.
But the argument that opposing POTUS in this instance indicates that Dems oppose border security is intellectually dishonest.
And it’s important to highlight the fact that Donald Trump is currently ***undermining ***border security, due to his choice not to fund important Homeland Security functions.
Note also that there is already money appropriated to border security which the Trump Administrations had declined to make use of.* So it would appear that border security is rather far down their list of concerns.
*About 40% of funds earmarked for border upgrades from the 2017-2018 Budget remain uncommitted. Though this is less than the “94%” claimed (misleadingly) by some Trump critics, it’s still a substantial chunk of Congressionally-enacted appropriations that could be being devoted to border security, but are not. PolitiFact | Has the Trump administration spent only 6 percent of border money?