Nothing produced so far in the Paul Manafort trial has had anything to do with any possible collusion with Russia on the part of Trump’s campaign back in 2016. So, Manafort’s plea bargain – which has a whole lotta plea and not much of a bargain – deals with tax fraud and not declaring your foreign lobbying activity. Things Manafort has most likely done, along with a significant percentage of other wealthy and connected beltway grifters like Tony Podesta, but done well before Manafort was even signed on as campaign manager in 2016.

Is there anything else?

That’s the question. Has Manafort held out on some information that somehow could be used to suggest or prove some sort of broadly-expanded definition of collusion? Because if they had found anything then Mueller would have charged Manafort with it. Andrew Weissmann has been leading the charge of course, and we’re not sure what he and Manafort will chat about now in order for Trump’s former campaign chief to be granted the leniency of merely a 10-year cap on any possible jail sentence. We’ll see but here’s a guess.

It will be some sort of attempt to link Manafort’s Pro-Russia Ukrainian connections to Trump’s campaign. Perhaps a money trail that leads, indirectly more than likely, to the Kremlin. But it has to be one that is relevant to what happened in 2016. Not what happened 5 or 10 years beforehand. But never mind, some sort of connection will be attempted. And again, they have spent millions and over a year trying to find one, using every possible avenue that’s available to a well-financed powerful special prosecutor. And they’ve come up with zilch.

As well, we now have what the hard-left Democrat base have been screaming for, some sort of possible if flimsy evidence that Brett Kavanaugh possibly may have had a #MeToo moment 36 years ago as a teenager at a party and therefore is disqualified to be a Justice. An anonymous letter that Senator Feinstein felt was too vague and too old to be useful. The woman who wrote the letter refusing to come forward. The media portraying the contents of the letter in contradictory ways. Rowan Farrow writing a hard-hitting piece in the New Yorker.

Perfect if you hate Kavanaugh and the possibility of a conservative, originalist court.

Or maybe not. This is an anonymous 36-year-old accusation that only surfaced when Kavanaugh had been nominated for the Supreme Court. What a coincidence, huh? It’s early days to see what becomes of the accusation, but if the media can out the woman – which they are surely trying to do at this moment – then maybe this story will stick and maybe Kavanaugh’s confirmation will somehow be sabotaged.

This is what happens when the opposition sees a blue wave coming in November. The rules of the game change and the hounds of war are released, howling and snapping and baying for blood. Ok, the progressive and NeverTrump hounds have been baying for blood for nearly 2 years now, but their cries are louder and are being listened to by Democrat strategists now that they see a House majority as a very real possibility and are even fondling the idea of a possible Senate takeover as well.

As well, the pressure on Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski will rise by orders of magnitude to try and ensure that Kavanaugh’s confirmation is voted down. Why? Because Trump’s approval ratings have fallen slightly, and because the polls are suggesting a Democrat House come November.

This will be tough week coming up for President Trump and it shows how partisan warfare makes it impossible for the Executive to focus the nation on what it has achieved. Jobs are plenty. The economy is booming. And everyone’s angry, divided and often isolated. How will everyone feel when the next recession hits?

Comments