Control the mechanisms of repercussions

Twitter user Thockman64 tweeted:

Malcom Nance made a comment on the Gaslit Nation podcast that has helped me understand people like Barr, Kavanaugh, the Conways, etal. They don’t care about the opinions of the public, they only care about the approval within their far-right, religious, autocratic tribe.

This fits supremacist thinking. Someone aiming for a high position in the hierarchy doesn’t care about the opinions about those in lower levels of the social ranking. But they very much want the approval of those at the same level as or above them. That boosts their standing.

Twitter user The Resistants replied:

They don’t even care about that. DONORS. That’s the whole ballgame. Keep the money flowing at whatever cost. There’s nothing they wouldn’t do for the right price.

I see it a bit differently. It isn’t just the money. It is the power, prestige, and social position that money can provide. And a seat in Congress is pretty prestigious. That plus the approval of the donors, which is a blessing of position.

Olga Lautman tweeted in response to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joking about the nasty guy’s corruption:

Have you noticed how Trump/his regime are flaunting their corruption? They aren't bothering to hide it and behaving this way because they can. This is a direct result from failure of conducting normal investigations and using the full extents of the law to hold them accountable.
…
Trump like the authoritarian and mobster he is will demand more and more outrageous acts from his inner circle to prove their loyalty.

Sarah Kendzior, in discussing new allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and what the reaction means, tweeted:

The GOP plan to remain in power forever. They don't care if damning info comes out so long as they control the mechanisms of repercussions for it. The final step in doing that is controlling the courts. That's why they are rushing the process and being so brazen at the same time.

Yeah, we’re doing something bad. But we are making sure you can’t do anything about it.

In the replies Kendzior is asked why so many GOP House members are declaring they’re not running for reelection. The same thing happened leading up to the 2018 election. The polling about the gerrymandered safety of their seats hasn’t changed. So what is it? Kendzior replied, starting with a phrase she’s been using a lot:

It's a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government. That means GOP candidates have taken very dirty money since groups like the NRA were used to launder it. They also have little autonomy outside total obedience. They have no future unless they're complicit drones.

My guess is a bunch of the GOP reps got in over their heads and are implicated in a broader crime scheme. It's likely more appealing to them to go into lobbying, private industry, or media. If they're cheerleaders on the perimeter, they can pretend this is all normal. (It's not.)

Walter Shaub, former Director of Office of Government Ethics, wonders about the silence in the media and the lack of discussion of reform coming from Democratic candidates at all levels. He mentions an Ebenezer moment. Think Scrooge after the third ghost.

There's a raging ethics crisis burning down the republic, and I don't hear the media pushing the candidates to discuss reform. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, whether the next President is Trump or someone else, anticorruption reform and restoration of values is paramount.
...
But it seems like the media is making the same mistake it made in 2016 by making ethics a minor issue. Maybe they're afraid it'll look too anti-Trump. But I say give him a chance to convince you he's had his Ebenezer moment. And grill the other candidates about ethics reform too.

What'll they divest?
What will they do to mitigate conflicts with the interests of family members?
What legislation will they support, what regulations?
What will their executive orders say?
What kind of people will they appoint, and what will they do about conflicts of interest?
What personal financial information will they share beyond what the disclosure forms require?
Will they require appointees to disclose when they divest assets they sell or give to family members (or maybe ban such measures altogether), to reduce the risk of sham transactions?

Replies to this thread remind us the Democratic House did pass HR1, which now languishes in Moscow Mitch's graveyard. And Senator Elizabeth Warren, candidate for president, talks about it a lot. She understands what is going on.