Politics

Uh-oh. It appears that Donald Trump’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was destroyed last night by someone wielding a pickaxe. Could this act of wanton vandalism be a sign that Trump’s star is truly starting to wane?  Or was it a false flag operation to arouse sympathy for Trump?Trump is under attack on multiple fronts but it may be where he feels most comfortable. This morning Trump expressed his indignation at his former lawyer Michael Cohen’s taping of the duo discussing in September 2016—a few months before the presidential election—how to handle the ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal who has stated that she and Trump had an intense relationship about a decade ago.

“A storm’s a coming, baby” the adult film star Stormy Daniels promised during her Saturday Night Live appearance back in May. Judging by the tumult of the months since, she’s made good on her claim – though hardly in the way she envisioned. First, she found herself in handcuffs after Ohio police arrested her and two other women for breaching the state’s ‘no touching’ law. Charges have since been dropped. Then Glendon Crain, her husband and a fellow porn industry veteran who performs under the name Brendan Miller, is filing for divorce, a temporary restraining order, and sole custody of their daughter.

It seems like ancient history now, but the week before the ill-fated summit in Helsinki President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. It was Trump’s second nomination to America’s highest court in as many years and conservatives overwhelmingly cheered his choice. “I’ve often heard that, other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a President will make,” Trump said in the East Room of the White House. “The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States.” Kavanaugh was picked to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee who was nevertheless a swing vote on the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, back at the DNC...With the world mesmerized by the insane ravings of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Barack Obama, our inner heartstrings are tugged with compassion with the obvious suffering of another human being.  In the case of Brennan, one’s mind turns not to Hamlet (“O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!”) but rather "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." There may be a dollop of animal cunning behind Brennan’s humiliating anti-Trump outbursts. He may be hoping against hope that his own role in the effort to delegitimize and reverse the results of a free, open, and democratic presidential election will be swept under the rug and he will emerge unscathed.

Remember William of Occam? He was the medieval English monk who invented the razor. Not the one that kept his tonsure bare and shiny, but the one that he applied to the confusion of evidence. Bearded philosophers still use Occam’s Razor, the principle that when all else fails, the simplest explanation is the likeliest explanation. Apply William’s logic-chopper to Donald Trump’s Helsinki performance, and you’re quickly down to two possibilities. One is that Trump, as John Brennan frothed on Twitter, is ‘treasonous’ and ‘wholly in the pocket of Putin’, presumably because of unspecified but urine-scented kompromat.

If anyone wanted an encapsulation of the screwiness of our times just consider the following straight question being asked of an interview subject. ‘How does being a communist impact your view of the US presidency, whether it’s Obama or Trump?’ And then consider that this pleasant question was being asked by Teen Vogue. It was posed to a young woman called Ash Sarkar who writes for an obscure blog named Novara Media.  Last week Sarkar had her 15 seconds of fame when she managed the impossible and appeared to out-arrogant Piers Morgan in a television shouting-match ostensibly about Donald Trump’s visit to the UK.

Did Vladimir Putin finally become Donald Trump’s new best friend in Helsinki? Trump, who has been panting to meet with Putin, lavished his Russian counterpart with praise. His extraordinary performance is meeting with some hostile reviews, many of them centering on the suspicion that Trump truly is a creature of the Kremlin. Rather than confront Putin, he publicly cosied up to him, after remaining immured with him for about two hours with only a few translators, thereby nourishing the conviction that Putin has the goods on him. The summit, which was intended to smooth relations with Moscow, is having the reverse effect by heightening suspicions about his motives and rendering it even more difficult for him to dispose, in one fashion or another, of the Mueller investigation.

That was fast. Donald Trump moved to defuse the bombshell Sun interview he gave last night, which was recorded, by calling it “fake news” in his press conference with Theresa May this morning, who wore but apparently did not see red over his remarks. But even by the vertiginous standards of Trumpworld, this reversal set a new bar for redefining reality to comport with whatever suits the president’s needs. What might seem momentous when Trump utters it is really only the expostulation of a moment.The same rules will surely apply to his upcoming summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin. A diligent press corps is trying to force Trump to say what he will do or say when he meets his Russian chum. But Trump himself may not really know.

OK, I had never heard of Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s latest nominee for the Supreme Court, before last week either. But it doesn’t take long to discover that he is possessed of a razor-sharp legal mind and a very traditionalist judicial philosophy. By “traditionalist,” I mean that he believes that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the laws of the United States as written, not to use the law to further his personal policy preferences. Until at least the mid-1950s, this was the dominant sentiment on the Supreme Court. It was cast aside in succeeding years as Justices found “emanations and penumbras” (William O. Douglas’s words) in the Constitution to justify social policies that they favoured.