Wondering on Wednesday (v185)

What a great day to be wondering...

In last week's Wondering, for example, I suggested that we didn't need Hillary Clinton talking about anything other than her new book, and that she should ignore questions about the president, about impeachment, about 2016 and related topics, or she should defer to the 2020 candidates because their opinions matter, during this primary season, while Clinton's do not. That didn't happen last night in an interview on the PBS Newshour, or on her own Twitter account, where she's been quoted on any number of subjects. Meanwhile, actual 2020 candidates are starving for air time. What is that, I wonder?

I also wonder, how does the president pretend that he has anything to say about what Turkey does or doesn't do in Syria? First, he takes a mysterious call with Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (I say mysterious because we haven't seen the readout of the call on the White House web page, and we don't know whether it's on the 'regular' server or the "dear God, don't let this crap see the light of day" server), and then we pull out our troops leaving the Kurds in the lurch, and then he says they weren't ever our allies, we paid them well for the job they did, and then he binge-tweets about impeachment but then circles back around to let us know about his great and unmatched wisdom at which point we heard the world laughing, and wondering #whattheactualhelliswrongwithUS and stuff.

I'm also wondering, thinking about his impeachment binge-tweeting, whether he's really mad that Mueller didn't find any collusion, and so he's been trying to show that he is, in fact, able to successfully collude with another country to interfere in our elections?

Similarly, he's got the Mueller report showing multiple acts of obstruction of justice, for which he's been told he cannot be charged, and so now he's just boldly obstructing everything, including the impeachment inquiry?

Today, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Engel, Chaff, and Cummings.  The letter demonstrates that the Democrats’ inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, and even the most elementary due process protections.  Democrats are pursuing purely partisan goals, including influencing the upcoming 2020 election.  In the process, they are violating civil liberties and the separation of powers, threatening Executive Branch officials with punishment simply for exercising their constitutional rights and prerogatives.  All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.  For these reasons, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to, and will not participate in, this exercise of partisan political theater.

Acting with impunity sounds a lot like having immunity, right?

There was lots of wondering yesterday about the status of former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy and whether he had actually joined the Trump impeachment legal team, or not. First it was reported that he had declined, and then it was reported that he had in fact joined the team.

Where it stands: As the president faces an impeachment inquiry, Gowdy can offer Trump another opinion on where legal theory meets political reality, a person familiar told Axios' Margaret Talev, adding that his Benghazi experience is seen as an asset. Gowdy is expected to advise the White House behind the scenes and appear on TV to advocate on behalf of the president.

If your wondering, this should be a LOT of fun when Gowdy goes on TV on behalf of Trump. He made his name, you'll remember, getting stymied by Clinton in the multi-million-dollar BENGHAZI! investigations, and for getting stymied by Peter Strzok in the House FBI Conspiracy Theory hearings. And, of course, by saying things like this.

The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you’re the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.”

And, for saying things like this.

Too often, things seem to be a vicious cycle where very little is accomplished and a lot of folks are negatively impacted, reputations are tarnished, and that's just hard to be part of.

Or this.

The fact that someone disagrees with me does not make me challenge their love of the country. It doesn’t make me believe they are corrupt. I don’t think the end justifies the means.

Which makes his going to work for Trump well worth the wondering, don't you think?