It seems that for a large part of the American elite, a nuclear war with Russia would be preferable to reconciliation with the
fact that Clinton and the pack of neocon warmonger lost the election to Trump. Now members of the American neoliberal elite are at
each other threats and it does not look pretty. These are desperate actions by the faction of the elite that
supports global neoliberal Empire to oust the sitting US President for almost two years, to no avail. And "Trump is insane" meme is
is a part of those efforts. Let's ask three very basic questions about Trump first:
Is Trump amoral? Definitely yes (Trump University, screwing his subcontractors for Taj Mahal, marital infidelity, etc).
Is
Trump2020 a new Hillary ? Jury is out. Like Hillary he is a pathological liar. He is probably less militant warmonger then she.
And like Hillaty he is essentially a marionette.
I do not see much difference between Pompeo and Bolton and similar people in Hillary administration (which both can probably join
after routine sex change operation). Putting gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson in charge of US foreign and trade policy is not
such a good idea.
Is Trump insane? Definitely not. He is just a NYC real estate conman who was elected due to desired to the US
blue collar and lower middle class voters in the USA to show middle finger to the neoliberal establishment. This is part of war-style demonization of the opponent by neoliberal MSM. His
twits, while being an apt demonstration of his narcissism, actually are pretty witty and often inflict great damage on the
opponents. While he is over 73 in 2019 as as such probably has some early stages of
neurological diseases typical for the old age (look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwh6Fu9BcAw for some cases of disorientation). Also natural are slurring and repetition of
words. But despite those several isolated incidents this is mostly that is a nasty and dirty attack of neoliberalism establishment.
All-in-all Trump is not very attractive character, that's for sure, but he is much better then Hillary, who might bring the
USA of the edge of war with Russia over Syria. At the same time Trump is probably is the last person to be in change of the country
foreign policy: he operates on instinct and that's very bad. And he is too beholden to Israel and the US Zionist lobby.
As for his impulsively here is a vey telling quote:
... it's hard to recall a President who had such little interest, or expertise, in the details of
governing. Wayne Barrett, the legendary Village Voice muckraker who died on Thursday, at the age of seventy-one, had
covered Trump for almost as long as anybody. (He published a book about him, in 1992.) “Donald just has no interest in
information," Barrett told Jennifer
Gonnerman, shortly after the election. "He has no genuine interest in policy. He operates by impulse.”
Trump’s brazen, shoot-from-the-hip style appealed to many voters fed up with neoliberal Washington. And since his inauguration, Trump
has made a show of breaking the rules — shaking up the political establishment with everything from unorthodox decisions to off-the-cuff
comments to full-blown international scandals. Tony Schwartz,
the ghostwriter of Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal, cited the President’s short attention span, impulsive tendencies, restless
behavior, and daily fix via Twitter.
Attacks on Trump and Russiagate witch hunt in general) mainly demonstrated that even such a small threat to global neoliberal empire led by the USA as election of Trump caused really inadequate
reactions from the US neoliberal elite and , especially, neocons (which are lobbyists for MIC).
They unleashed a color revolution against him with the appointment of Mueller as the key episode ("insurance" is Strzok-speak). Mueller investigation is
just another round of "Moscow trials" -- attempt to get rid of political opponent(s) by judicial means. Or later shadow of "Moscow trials" --
McCarthyism campaign in the USA (late 1940th early 1950th) which BTW lasted a decade.
Presenting the enemy as crazy brutal and morally deprived beast is the classic method of war propaganda. It's principles are are
well known since the WWI (Falsehood in War-Time):
1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest. 5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
And those principles are all used by neoliberal MSM in their attacks on Trump.
But such attacks need at least to be plausible, while being false. So now in 2019 it is interesting to see how Trump was
characterized in 2016 and who of his opponents was the most insightful:
Ask the ghostwriter of his best-selling book, “The Art of the Deal.”
Tony Schwartz
has
called Trump a “sociopath” and has said “there is an excellent possibility” that the
Trump presidency “will lead to the end of civilization.”
... ... ...
Throughout the campaign and Trump's first year in office, news articles, op-eds, and tweets critical of him have routinely
hinted that he is mentally unstable and dangerous personality. But what are the implications of the use of mental health language in
political battles?
We can agree that Trump has several problematic traits along the lines that “narcissist.”e apparently values self-image even over national interest
But generally "Trump is crazy" meme is a part of efforts of demonization of Trump is part of this witch hunt in which you gaslighting of the US public goes full speed. Recently
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked a question
of his Twitter that nicely summarize the US neoliberal MSM paranoia (and witch hunt): “Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians
that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?”.
In the context of insinuation about Trump mental health this question can be reformulated as “Aside from genuine cranks, is
there anyone left denying it Trump is insane and unfit for the office of the President?”
We can also talk about a campaign by neoliberal MSM for gaslighting Trump. Throughout the campaign and Trump's first year in office, news,
articles, op-eds, interviews of "very important persons" and now books pushed this meme. We can see routinely deployed "dog whistle"
words such as "crazy," "insane," and "unstable" as epithets. Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language
that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted
subgroup. But what are the implications of the use of mental health language in analyzing Trump actions? This is just the
necessary pre-condition for the palace coup -- removal of Trump using 25th Amendment.
It was just three days and a lifetime ago that I wrote a column about Donald Trump’s unfitness for the presidency that affected
a world-weary tone. Nothing about this White House’s chaos was surprising given the style of Trump’s campaign, I argued. None of
the breaking scandals necessarily suggested high crimes as opposed to simple omni-incompetence. And given that Republicans made their
peace with Trump’s unfitness many months ago, it seemed pointless to expect their leaders to move against him unless something far,
far worse came out.
As I said, three days and a lifetime. If the G.O.P.’s surrender to candidate Trump made exhortations about Republican politicians’
duty to their country seem like so much pointless verbiage, now President Trump has managed to make exhortation seem unavoidable
again.
He has done so, if several days’ worth of entirely credible leaks and revelations are to be believed, by demonstrating in a particularly
egregious fashion why the question of “fitness” matters in the first place.
The presidency is not just another office. It has become, for good reasons and bad ones, a seat of semi-monarchical political power,
a fixed place on which unimaginable pressures are daily brought to bear, and the final stopping point for decisions that can lead
very swiftly to life or death for people the world over.
One does not need to be a Marvel superhero or Nietzschean Übermensch to rise to this responsibility. But one needs some basic
attributes: a reasonable level of intellectual curiosity, a certain seriousness of purpose, a basic level of managerial competence,
a decent attention span, a functional moral compass, a measure of restraint and self-control. And if a president is deficient in
one or more of them, you can be sure it will be exposed.
Trump is seemingly deficient in them all. Some he perhaps never had, others have presumably atrophied with age. He certainly has
political talent — charisma, a raw cunning, an instinct for the jugular, a form of the common touch, a certain creativity that normal
politicians lack. He would not have been elected without these qualities. But they are not enough, they cannot fill the void where
other, very normal human gifts should be.
There several subtypes of his "unfit for the office" meme. Among them:
President actions like was in case of Bush II are based on instinct, not so much of rational calculations. Might
be a plausible hypothesis, but looks at Trump track record in real estate. And the fact that he managed to depose all republican
contenders. That can't be done on instinct.
Those closest to the President wield the most power. This is always true in any WH administration. Like for example was
the case with Carter and Brzezinski to great detriment of the USA. So trying to exaggerate this just show the evil nature
of gossip columnist, not so much the inner working of Trump WH.
The president is unfit for the office. This is also not a news. actually few presidents were fit for the office
in a sense having the necessary political experience (Kennedy, Nixon, Bush I come to mind). You need to have at least a couple of
terms as the US senator to be prepared. But the US presidency is more then one person. We also have a Deep state to provide
the balance ;-). And the fact that left hand does not know what right is doing is also a possibility with such
amount of staff and various Departments in federal government. For example intelligence agencies are semi-autonomous entries, which
like praetorian guard can revolt against the president and FBI did this recently.
Constant elevation of "watercooler chat" to the level of revelation about Trump.
One more comment here about Michael Wolff and his claim that everybody in the White House thinks that Trump’s a child,
that he’s a moron, he doesn’t like to read, he’s mentally unbalanced, all this. This is really irresponsibly absurd. And for this
claim to be 100% of the people around Trump, andWolff is the guy saying that he can’t guarantee everything in his book
is right, and he’s also admitting that he did anything to get his story, including not tell people they were on the record when
he was talking to ’em.
In East Germany, Stasi leader Markus Wolfe took things a step further with the “zersetzung” tactic. The idea was to *induce*
a “personal crisis” through clandestine harassment, including at the hands of acquaintances secretly recruited by the Stasi. In
other words, ... trying to cause *real* mental illness by relentlessly gaslighting selected individual dissidents until they cracked.
Wolff with his penchant to alcohol assumed the role of psychiatrist and tried to declare the President "mentally unstable"
or, worse, "unfit for the office". This theme was actually invented directly after the election with the insinuation about Trump questions
about nuclear weapons and his access to the "red button". As Caitlyn Johnstone aptly noted
Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by
Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's
right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition
of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right
out and say that.
They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't
just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so
we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars
and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll
also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please."
A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives
better.
Woff essentially subscribed to this memo and within the limits of mediocre writer capabilities tried to follow this, already
well established, canon, publishing invented and exaggerated by himself hearsay to please the NeverTrumpers who want "red meat"
on the President and are ready to pay money for it. Money do not smell ;-),
Both psychiatrists and psychologists
operate under ethical rules that prevent them from offering professional diagnostic opinions about the mental health of public figures
they have not personally examined. The American Psychiatric Association’s version of this
is known as the Goldwater Rule
— named for another polarizing Republican presidential candidate.
The rule has its roots in the September/October
1964 issue of
a magazine
called Fact, which was entirely devoted to parsing the results of a survey the editors had sent to more than 12,000 psychiatrists.
The survey only had one question: “Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as president of the United States?”
Most of the psychiatrists — 9,939 of them, to be exact — didn’t respond. Of those who did, 571 said they didn’t know enough about
Goldwater to answer, and another 657 declared him fit as a fiddle. But 1,189 psychiatrists said “no,” and many of them added colorful
commentary that the magazine reprinted under a headline (“FACT:
1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!”) that conveniently left out the fact that they didn’t
represent a majority opinion. The Republican presidential candidate was called “paranoid” and “a dangerous lunatic.” One respondent
suggested that Goldwater had “a stronger identification to his mother than to his father” — fighting words in 1964 America, apparently.
In the aftermath, Goldwater sued
Fact (andwon), Fact went defunct, and the American Psychiatric
Association tried to make sure that none of this would ever happen again. The result was Section 7.3 of the APA’s Principles of Medical
Ethics:
Before you read Wolff's book please listed to Trump old interview
Donald Trump -- Charlie Rose. IMHO he does not come out of this interview as bumbling idiot. I strongly recommend
to listen to it in full.
Before you read Wolff's book please listed to Trump old interview
Donald Trump -- Charlie Rose. IMHO he does not
come out of this interview as bumbling idiot. I strongly recommend to listen to it in full.
The Democrats' strongest card was to present Trump as an existential threat and to foresee the breakdown of democracy's fail-safe
mechanisms. This also was quite an alarming approach. The guttural "Lock her up!" chants at the RNC seemed extreme enough. But in
a way, the Democrats' position was much more radical. Trump cannot be allowed; Trump is immoral; Trump is — the ultimate disqualifier
— insane. In other words, if Duck Dynasty-type voters carry the day in November, that would not be an example of democracy
but a failure of it.
... ... ...
The Democrats' approach, in a convention whose television ratings outpaced the Republicans until the final day (Trump himself
remains a bigger draw than Hillary) was to argue that there is an onrushing Trump apocalypse, but not to address any of the issues
causing people to vote for the apocalypse.
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said: "This book is filled with false and misleading accounts from individuals who
have no access or influence with the White House."
Wolff is seasoned journalist who can write entertaining column mostly "celebrity
gossip" style in which he really excels. Now let's discuss how disingenuously Wolff pushes those quotes. Which along with Veselnitskaya
meeting quote represent the most powerful attack lines on Trump in the book.
First of all those quotes are provided without any context, which makes them a malicious slander. For example it is common
in any large corporation to call management "those f--ing idiots" to protest against excessive bureaucratization or other typical
large organization ills. This is just a release valve for frustration, nothing more then that. In such cases people do not
put in such phrases the meaning that the other person is stupid, just that fact that the organization led by those people behave
disappointing and/or disrupting some reasonable plan or action. Or provide distorted vision of the situation (corporate-speak).
The real meaning is "I got in some troubles due to your action or the organizational problems". Or even simply "I disagree with you".
This "Iago-style" op-ed which was
published
anonymously in the New York Times, looks like a classic forgery, created within NYT or using some already fired former Trump official posing as
a “conservative” (another common scam) to attacking Trump to attract some voters in midterm.
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats
and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause
of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and
you’ll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President.
The op-ed which interestingly enough surfaced one day after the first excerpts emerged from Bob Woodward’s new book, in which
anonious insinuations suggested a “crazytown” atmosphere inside the White House. So it was a second well-times jab, kind of planned
leaks:
The phrase “The sleeper cells have awoken” circulated on text messages among aides and outside allies.
But the president’s press
secretary was right to suggest that “this pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed” written by an anonymous “senior
official in the Trump administration” (who most probably does not exist) for The New York Times was not exactly a
profile-in-courage statement. The "resistance" that he described
was is a neocon imperial resistance. The "anonymous resister" (aka saboteur) enthusiasm for the administration’s right-wing agenda
suggests that the neocons can't stomach even slightest deviation from their "Full Spectrum Dominance" agenda, no matter what level
of suffering it inflicts on Americans and "brown people" which the USA bombs to advance this agenda.
Diane Johnstone gave a very good analysis of this nasty and disingenuous attack on Trump. Her hypotheses is that anonymous author does not exist and this is Iago
style provocation looks the most plausible explanation (The New York
Times as Iago Sept 7, 2018)
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no more reliable source of fake news
than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable
as their sources are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don’t know anything about
Russia’s plans to mess up our November elections because “informants close to … Putin and in the Kremlin” aren’t saying anything.
Not knowing anything about something for which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to “inform the public” since there is no information in it. It has other purposes: to keep the
“Russia is undermining our democracy” story on front pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful
of his entourage. The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the “newpaper of record” on September 5. (By the way, the “record” is
stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad – bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined “I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration”, signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT
staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump’s “amorality” – a category that outside the
Washington swamp might include betraying the trust of one’s superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as
“bright spots”: deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, “and more” – cleverly omitting mention of Trump’s immigration policy
which could unduly shock the New York Times’ liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity,
is cited as the example to follow.
The “resistance” proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump’s foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be
working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. Trump’s desire to avoid war is transformed into
“a preference for autocrats and dictators”. (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with
Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats
and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause
of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and
you’ll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are visibly ready to accept the Devil
himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn’t
count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize the presidency by sowing distrust.
Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: “The dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials
in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” (meaning
peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare’s villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest
associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the “Moor” of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret “informants”, and that
Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed,
but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure.
There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper’s own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely
entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power territory. The New York Times “news”
that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on “who is it?” The
Boston Globe (among others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
“So who’s the author of the op-ed? It’s a question that has many people poking through the text, looking for clues. Meanwhile,
the denials have come thick and fast. Here’s a brief look at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might
have a motive to write the letter.”
Isn’t it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn’t that a way to drive him toward that
“crazy” where they say he already is, and which is fallback grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come
up with anything more serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like “erratic behavior” and “instability” to contribute to the “Trump
is insane” narrative. Insanity is the alternative pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the
presidency. If Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his mental instability. The
oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement.
To save our exemplary democracy from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The
intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue
to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin
in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation
into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States has all those brand new first strike
nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there
with their own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United States, has the right
to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left
is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
Bob Woodward is a pompous darling of the Washington
establishment ever since he and Carl
Bernstein functioned as human dead drops for the leaks from the FBI and others
intelligence agencies which brought down Richard Nixon.
In his book Woodward present the President as mentally incompetent, with attention span of a child. Woodward offers a devastating
portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides -- both current and former Trump administration officials
-- grew exasperated with the President and increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.
According to anonymous source Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" (Kelly refuted this) while the
Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth
grader" (Mattis refuted this). Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a fucking
liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special
counsel Robert Mueller.
Woodward has always
relied on anonymous sources, primarily from the US intelligence community,
who leak salacious information to him for their own political purposes
effectively acting as Fifth power and kingmaker. Christopher Hitchins called Woodward, "the
stenographer for the rich and the powerful" but he is more an amplifier for
the intelligence community political influence.
In the case of George W. Bush
that meant washing the crimes to perhaps the most mentally
vacant President in US history including the Iraq War as well as other
disastrous military interventions which wrecked the US military and much of
Southwest Asia.
Woodward’s much ballyhooed account of a deathbed conversation
with former CIA Director Bill Casey has been widely debunked as fabricated and
drew a rare public rebuke from President Ronald Reagan who called Woodward an
outright liar.
This is why President Trump is right to ask whether the New
York Times "Deep State sleeper cell:" op-ed, supposedly
written by "senior Trump official" is the attempt to play Iago. Does this official exists, or NT reused
Woodward "source."
Woodward’s book on the 2008 bailout of Wall Street,
following the collapse which broke most of the country and destroyed our
middle class, is a vicious lie, painting the totally corrupted officials of
the Bush and Obama Administrations as well-intentioned public servants.
The late great actual investigative reporter, Robert Parry, took Woodward
to task for not reporting the real Richard Nixon crime which caused the Watergate
cover-up: Nixon’s deliberate sabotage of Viet Nam Paris peace talks (using Henry Kissinger and others), prolonging the Viet Nam War for
several years
in order to win the 1968 presidential election. This crime cost
thousands of US and Vietnamese lives.
Woodward had the story at the time,
exclusively, but chose not to report it. Writer Joan Didion best summed up
Woodward and his "work" in a famous essay published in the September, 1996,
New York Review of Books. She said that after Watergate, "measurable
cerebral activity" in Woodward’s books was virtually absent and that the books
have "a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the storynot as it is
occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured."
She calls his method, "political pornography."
The Washington Post, now in the
hands of Deep State member and pirate capitalist Jeff Bezos, was, for years, owned
by the Graham family and functioned purposely throughout the post war period
as a psychological warfare and propaganda vehicle for the CIA and intelligence
community.
Complementing the NYT’s attempt to play Iago in Trump
administration, the WaPo coverage of
the Op-Ed by supposed member of a "sleeper cell" within the administration
(presented as a "senior official") was aplified by neoliberal MSM to the level of national event. As for the NYT -- Well, any one who is
literate can cite their early support for Mussolini and Hitler and their
history as the propaganda vehicle during cold war. This is the voice of Wall Street and the City of
London.
Currently the WaPo and NYT have been outpaced only by CNN and MSNBC as
purveyors of hate against this President.
President Trump accused veteran journalist Bob Woodward of being a Democratic “operative” after excerpts from the reporter’s new
book were released. In a tweet Tuesday night, Trump cited his aides refuting the reporting in “Fear: Trump in the White House” as
evidence that the book is inaccurate.
“The Woodward book has already been refuted and discredited by General (Secretary of Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of
Staff) John Kelly,” he wrote. “Their quotes were made up frauds, a con on the public. Likewise other stories and quotes. Woodward is
a Dem operative? Notice timing?”
Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's
firing of former Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly elected president out
of office. According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the statement in an NBC 60
Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation
to go after Trump for obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in behalf of
Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May 16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law
enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing,
to the Senate's president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the powers and duties of
his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
FBI mandarins and the outgoing Obama administration were determined to undermine Trump political standing, and particularly his
proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, spying
on his campaign, brutal media onslought, and a barrage of innuendo.
Peter Strzok, head of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated strong anti-Trump sentiment in tweets and emails to
Justice official Lisa Page. Christopher Steele's dossier was specifically designed to throw the dirt on Trump, including
an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him. It was compiled by a former MI6 official with strong tied
to FBI, expesissiallt to McCabe close cicles of fighter with organized crime.
Now we have an admission from a participant of those meetings that several top FBI and Justice Department officials were
trying to design a scheme to bring bring down an elected president they didn't like. Among other thing McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with Trump to incriminate him and make him
more vulnerable to the plot (he might be set up by FBI )
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley, who conducted the interview and
spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the
president. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting noses in that effort," said Pelley.
He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This
was not perceived to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment plot, senior FBI officials also
discussed initiating a national security investigation of the president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian
agent. These talks were revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door congressional
testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very carefully to see that the reporters on these
stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility. The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was
Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following directions' of
Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely did so to bolster the Narrative A version of
events.
Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, suggests that the set of well timed leaks was not accidental:
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director John O. Brennan, a leading Trump
antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he
had intelligence indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the question. He said
his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals, and they try to get them to act on their behalf
either wittingly or unwittingly."
Brennan's fancy expression was a direct reminiscence of Moscow "show Trials" and the power of MIC in the USA. Politicians
which are not jingoistic enough and which the Deep State want to remove can be misrepresented as "Kremlin spies" (exactly the same
trick that Stalin Henchmen used -- in this case it was British spied ;-). Any spying for Kremlin include not just conscious and
nefarious collaboration but also pretty reasonable advocacy of detente. Which of course is viewed as wrongheaded and injurious to MIC
interests. As Porter puts it,
"The real purpose is to confer on national security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on
individuals on the basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration with the
Russian government."
That means that Brennan (the mastermind of the Russiagate), McCabe, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page and several other FBI
officials were ready to use almost anything short of assassination to block any attempt to thaw relations with Russia. They viewed
him as a rogue politician "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report described the sentiment among top FBI officials after
the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order to justify their machinations. It's
difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak
on the body politic.
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just as they distorted the rules of
official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the
American people. It's getting more and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
gjohnsit on Sun, 08/25/2019 - 8:57pm The media has been exaggerating the things that
Trump has been saying for a long time.
In many cases their overreaction was tiresome.
But this past week was something else. Trump really did start talking like an insane
person .
President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to release ISIS fighters in Europe as a form of
punishment for countries like Germany and France; said he's strongly considering trying to
change the Constitution by executive order (it doesn't work that way); indicated he hasn't
ruled out trying to illegally serve more than two terms; rewrote history during comments
about Russia's expulsion from the G8 that framed the situation in the most pro-Kremlin manner
possible; and, despite five draft deferments, joked about giving himself the Medal of Honor.
That was Wednesday. And that's an incomplete list of all the outlandish stuff Trump said
on that day alone.
Any of the aforementioned statements would've generated major scandals coming from the
mouth of any other president. But given the week Trump has been having, they arguably didn't
even make the cut of the five most WTF things he's said since his New Jersey vacation ended
on Monday.
Did you catch all of that? Because that isn't even the most
bizarre stuff .
Just this morning, the president delivered a proclamation stating that, "Our great American
companies are hereby ordered" to stop dealing with China (!). He also declared the chairman
of the Federal Reserve, whom he himself appointed, was an enemy of the state.
But remember when the president endorsed the idea he is King of Israel and the Second
Coming of God? And then he said Jewish people who vote for Democrats -- that is, the 70-to-80
percent of American Jews who don't support him -- are guilty of "disloyalty" to Israel? And
then he accused Rashida Tlaib of anti-Semitism? And then he started screaming, "WHERE IS THE
FEDERAL RESERVE?" And then he canceled a diplomatic trip to Denmark because the prime
minister was rude in saying she wouldn't sell him Greenland? And then he demanded Russia be
reinstated in the G8, and said they were only thrown out because they "outsmarted" Obama,
when in fact it was because they'd invaded Ukraine? And then he declared he was The Chosen
One, looking to the heavens as he said it, who'd been tapped by the almighty to launch a
trade war against China?
TRUMP: "The fake news, of which many of you are members, is trying to convince the public
to have a recession. 'Let's have a recession!' ... I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do
it. So I'm taking on China." pic.twitter.com/OHmXOzoO7I
....like he's the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God...But
American Jews don't know him or like him. They don't even know what they're doing or saying
anymore. It makes no sense! But that's OK, if he keeps doing what he's doing, he's good
for.....
That's a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI
director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's firing of former
Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly
elected president out of office.
According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the
statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said
that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for
obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in
behalf of Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May
16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit
Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate's
president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install
the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it
would set, it's necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text
prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional
figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president
after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration
within those four days that the guy can't govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue.
It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have
to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the
vice president would govern. If Congress can't muster the two-thirds majority within the
prescribed time period, the president "shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
It's almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under
this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of
the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or
even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with
the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental
"incapacitation," as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even
erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize
the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to
themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the
impeachment language of the Constitution.
For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing
narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.
One narrative -- let's call it Narrative A -- has it that honorable and dedicated federal
law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian
agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve
U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite
understandably, that Trump had "colluded" with Russian officials to cadge a victory that
otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by
Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the "Russia as Threat" preoccupation, and
by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post
, and The New York Times .
The other view -- Narrative B -- posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the
national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart
Trump's candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel.
The McCabe revelation won't affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and
outrageous as this "deep state" behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be
seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there
heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.
And those Narrative A folks won't have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was
fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to
the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators
on four occasions, including three times while under oath.
Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed
by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn't matter. Peter Strzok, head
of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails
to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele's dossier of dirt on Trump,
including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled
by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was "desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected and passionate about him not being president"? Not important. The
dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial.
Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?
Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the
country's premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting
president they didn't like. The Times even says that McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with
Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley,
who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal
officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn't seem to
be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting
noses in that effort," said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's
insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This was not perceived
to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment
plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the
president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were
revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door
congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very
carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility.
The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on
Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following
directions' of Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely
did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.
The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating
exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as
reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were
clearly self-interested leaks.
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director
John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever
since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence
indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the
question. He said his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals,
and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly."
Of course you can't collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan's fancy expression has the
effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious
and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or
injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, "The real purpose is to confer on national
security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the
basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration
with the Russian government."
That seems to be what's going on here. There's no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and
Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations
with Russia. They viewed him as a president "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report
described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order
to justify their machinations. It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would
take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body
politic.
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just
as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to
destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It's getting more
and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
You're right, it didn't change a thing in the full-throated support to depose an elected
President they disagree with. The bureaucratic cabal has long had a more informal absolute
veto over who can even run for President. This guy challenged that hegemony of insider power
brokers, and caused the revelation that we have morphed into a Potemkin-style, managed
democracy, in which we don't choose who gets to run, just which of their choices we are allowed
to approve.
Such is the decadent trajectory, of republics that transition into empires, where
democratic accountabilty to the governed, domestic and foreign, decays in favor of empire
administrators and their elite beneficiaries and their sinecures at the expense of the
majority.
People rail against Trump as some sort of would-be Caesar, but he is elected, while those
permanent unaccountable "national security" czars acting in secrecy they are willing to
transfer all power to, are not.
No form of popular government can survive when secret police recording everything and spying
on the population become the real power.
"It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude
toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic."
What we don't want to recognize is that people in such positions are, in fact, just that
dumb. It is unfortunately true. While not a Trump supporter, I would be out on the streets with
them if these jacka$$es had tried to pull this off. They should ALL be immediately terminated
and any benefits revoked.
Last night (Feb 14, 2019) Tucker Carlson interviewed retired Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz (1:04-3:36):
Carlson: "Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So now the suspicions of many are
confirmed by one of the players in it. The Department of Justice discussed trying to remove the
President using the 25 Amendment. What's your reaction to that?
Dershowitz: "Well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d'état.
Relating to what your former guest said, let's take the worst case scenario: Let's assume the
President of the United States was in bed with the Russians, committed treason, committed
obstruction of justice -- the 25 Amendment simply is irrelevant to that. That's why you have an
impeachment provision. The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It's about a
president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It's not about the most
fundamental disagreements. It's not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department
official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed
a grievous offense against the Constitution. The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind
something very specific. And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment
provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional
power-grabbing. And you were right when you said it reminded me of what happens in third world
countries. Look, these people may have been well-intentioned. They may believe that they were
serving the interests of the United States. But you have to obey the law and the law is the
Constitution and the 25th Amendment is as clear as could be: incapacity, unable to perform
office. That's what you need. That's why you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate
agreeing. And it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity. Not on the
basis of even the most extreme crimes -- which there is no evidence were committed -- but even
if they were, that would not be basis for invoking the 25th Amendment. And I challenge any
left-wing person to get on television and to defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge
any of my colleagues who are in the "Get Trump At Any Cost" camp to come on television and
justify the use of the 25 Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.
Carlson: I bet they're doing that right now. This is an attack on our system, I would say,
not just the President. Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much.
Dershowitz: It is an attack on our system. It's an attack on the constitution. Thank
you.
How many millions of dollars did Bill and Hill receive from Russians? How much of America's
uranium deposits did Hillary sell to Russians during her time in the Obama administration? The
New York Times informs us:
" . . . the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from
a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off
was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions
from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton
Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease
concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show."
I wonder how much howling and how many allegations of "collusion" with Russia we'd be
hearing if the name Clinton were removed from the NY Times article and the name Trump were
inserted?
The article states: " top officials of the country's premier law enforcement entity sat around
and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn't like."
-- -- -- --
Which makes one wonder if "The rule of law" is becoming the rule of outlaws? When the
non-elected in the justice profession appear to have their own agenda.
Trump is an idiot, but his enemies in the lib-Dem-media Establishment are far worse: corrupt,
deceitful, arrogant, and lawless. Exhibit A is Andrew McCabe.
That's why I'll vote for the Idiot-in-Chief (again) in 2020. Because the alternative makes
me vomit.
"The pages of this publication drift further and further into utter insanity and
despicable defense of Trump. Stand up for the values of the Constitution, or something, but
not for this man who is no more than a self-enriching demagogue with no understanding of the
reactionary politics he uses to delude the rubes and attract asinine threadbare pieces like
this one."
Actually no. Consider me the inverse of Peter. I didn't vote for Trump due to the character
weaknesses Peter describes. However, what I see is a seriously flawed man who has served the
useful purpose of revealing an echo chamber of flawed and self-serving biases shared by the
media and political establishment of this country. I see CNN, the NY Times, the Washington
Post, and even some key leaders of our security services in a completely different light than I
did two years ago. I am thankful for the clarity. I consider Merry's article to be a
contribution in that direction.
"Peter" sez: "Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they
knew to be a criminal taking over the office of the presidency."
Weird but no one has shown any actual criminal behavior by said President. Two years later
still no charges. But Peter and these "career law enforcement officials" KNEW he was a
criminal. Then Peter appeals to the Constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that the
Constitution doesn't make any provisions for plotting to remove the lawfully elected President
because you don't like just because you "know" he is a "criminal", in spite of any actual
evidence.
"After his election, they (the deep state) determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel."
The trouble with that is it completely ignores the ton of evidence pointing to really
nefarious stuff.
Lots of times, when there's smoke, there's fire. And when the smoke is overwhelming there
probably is a fire. A big one.
Trump has been going after the Russians since his inauguration. Therefore, those trying to
remove him from office are likely the actual Russian agents. Of course they would need smoke
and mirrors to hide that fact and deflect attention from themselves. It just so happens that
Russian spies are trained by the FSB to accuse others of being a spy, for just this purpose.
I'm looking at you, John O. (Oleg?) Brennan
No matter who the President is, there is some group of people in Washington is ALWAYS trying to
bring him down. Who those people are, and how large and powerful the group is, depends on a
variety of factors. But a competent president manages to enact his agenda while staying one
step ahead of his intriguers. Obama and GWB accomplished both, more or less because they were
intelligent men of good character (though Obama was much smarter and better man than W)
While Bill Clinton's character was too low to avoid impeachment he was a smart and able
administrator. Trump has both low character and low intellect so it is not surprising A. that
many people want to bring him down and B. that they have been pretty effective.
Politics may be a blood sport in Washington but that's not the same as a "deep state". And
Trump can't compete and win with anyone in Washington who doesn't grovel before him like the
supine Senate Republicans. And that is no one's fault but his.
You wanting Trump to be a Russian agent does not make him one. It never
will. Get over it. , ,
February 16, 2019 at 12:08 am
"If it turns out that Trump IS a Russian asset, will you apologize, Robert Merry? Because he
certainly acts like one. And, as REAL Republicans used to say, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
@One Guy Yeah, because sending deadly aid to Ukraine is so pro-Russian. What an idiot you
are!
"Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they knew to be a
criminal taking over the office of the presidency. Shame on them!"
They also "knew" Martin Luther King Jr. was a Soviet agent.
The issue with the 25th amendment, is that the President's character flaws or mental deficiency
were known and very visible before the election. Is it constitutionally proper for Congress to
suspend a President for a preexisting condition that was known to and unhidden from voters? If
Congress did that, it means Congress has a veto over who the public is allowed to vote in as
President.
Forget the Covington students, Andrew McCabe and his lady co-workers have some pretty punchable
faces. (Ok, I'm enough of a sexist to not punch a lady. I'd use eye-rolling and mocking
gestures instead.)
The problem is not the existence of the deep state. It's inevitable that there will be
unelected officials who will continue to shape policy regardless of who is elected President.
The problem is that the deep state is blatantly working to undermine its elected
leadership. If you can't in good conscience work with your President, the honorable thing
to do is resign as some undoubtedly have. It's not an excuse for insubordination.
They removed both Kennedy brothers. Why not to remove Trump?
Notable quotes:
"... This FBI/CIA (plus British intelligence etc.) attempt to destroy and remove an elected President will end the same way as the bank fraud that damaged the US economy 11 yrs ago. ..."
"... I think what the Intel Agencies were really concerned about was Trump's statement "wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia." They were worried about detente, not influence. Trump threatened to remove their number one bogeyman, which would put at risk trillions of dollars for the MIC. What if he dared to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty? What if he dared to share intelligence regarding terrorists with Russia, as Obama attempted before he was brought to heel? Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd" continues to ensure that Trump toes the line. The intel agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the REAL power. ..."
"... In such a world "voting" and "democracy" are simply fairy tales "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." They exist only as meaningless abstractions used to help insure we the populace remain compliant and don't take to the streets like the Yellow Vests in France. Which of course is our only chance whatsoever to in any meaningfully way impact this completely corrupt uber-violent corporate-feudal paradise we find ourselves now inhabiting. ..."
Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, in an
explosive interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," said that in early 2017, in the
aftermath of President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey, he and other
FBI officials discussed the possibility of recruiting a cabinet secretary to help push the
president out of office by using the Constitution's 25 th Amendment
McCabe further contended that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire
when he was around Trump in order to gather evidence against him. (Rosenstein
denies the allegation.) McCabe said that Justice Department officials believed at the time
that Trump may have obstructed justice by firing Comey, and they worried that Trump was somehow
under the influence of the Russian government. In the end, nothing came of the plan. Regardless
of one's feelings toward President Trump and his policies, what McCabe is describing is nothing
less than a coup attempt. It's something that happens in weak or nascent democracies, following
interference by the CIA perhaps. It should never happen here.
Trump has long had an antagonistic relationship with the FBI, the CIA and other elements of
the intelligence community. Indeed, in early 2017, when news of the FISA warrants and the
private intelligence Steele dossier began to leak out, Trump began to tweet his disgust at news
of impending investigations of him, his campaign, and his business dealings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded almost immediately, saying "(The president)
is being really dumb to do this." "This" was to take on the intelligence agencies, the
so-called Deep State, in public. A few days later, Schumer went on MSNBC to sharpen his warning
to Trump, saying, "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community -- they have six
ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
But Trump was right. The intelligence community -- the FBI, CIA, the NSA and other
three-letter agencies -- are too powerful, too entrenched and two well-funded. And they have
far too little oversight. They're a threat to our democracy, not the saviors of it. That is why
it pains me to see Democrats lining up behind them to attack Trump.
Presidents Come and Go
I was a member of that "Deep State" throughout my 15 years at the CIA. I can tell you from
first-hand experience that the CIA doesn't care who the president is. Neither does the FBI.
Senior CIA and FBI officers are there for decades, while presidents come and go. They know that
they can outwait any president they don't like. At the very least, at the CIA, they could made
administrative decisions that would hamstring a president: Perhaps they don't carry out that
risky operation. Maybe they don't target that well-placed source. Maybe they ignore the
president's orders knowing that in four years or eight years he or she will just go away.
Even worse, these same organizations -- the FBI and the CIA -- are the ones that have sought
to undermine our democracy over the years. Don't forget programs like COINTELPRO , the FBI's operation to force
Martin Luther King Jr. to commit
suicide ; the infiltration of peace groups; the CIA's efforts to control the media with
Operation
Mockingbird ; the CIA's illegal spying on American
citizens ; the CIA
hacking into the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and the Agency's
extrajudicial
assassination program ; to name a few.
McCabe's almost offhanded comments on "60 Minutes," that the FBI actively considered
deposing a sitting president should be cause for alarm. Set partisan politics aside for a
moment. We're talking about deposing a sitting president . We're talking about
wearing a wire to catch a sitting president saying something because you're angry that
he fired your boss. Even the idea of it is unprecedented in American history.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower
indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies.
He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's
torture program.
Hillary and the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders and gave Sanders voters a stiff
middle finger meanwhile Hillary via Bill Talked Trump into Running as a REPUBLICAN ..
Hillary was the neo con neo liberal candidate ..Trump was never supposed to win and even
he was shocked it happened ..Melania even cried .
its worse than you think
Why Did Bernie Abandon Tim Canova & Election Integrity
Also Integrity Initiative infiltrated the Sanders campaign and boosted anti-Jill Stein
messaging. The only good thing about all this investigations nonsense is that we see how
blatantly rigged and/or manipulated US elections are by intelligence agencies on top of the
pre-manipulation by the corporate giants.
Babyl-on , February 17, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Thomas Piketty in his typically tedious economic research, has shown that there is and has
been for centuries a core block of Western capital. This core capital has not in the past 500
years ever had a year of loss, they gained in profit ALWAYS no matter the empire or democracy
war or peace – that is EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
Institutions are instruments of power they are not power itself. These institutions are
given instructions by those who represent the core block of Western capital. The US
government and all its agencies serve ONLY the interests of core capital.
Today that block of core capital has grown to over 41 trillion dollars. It is the largest
block of capital anywhere in the world, it's influence is deeply saturated throughout Western
society and culture.
Peter Phillips has produced a tremendous book providing the evidence of this block of
capital and the structure which communicates its orders to the World Bank, Fed and the "deep
state" and the EU and its institutions. GIANTS: The Global Power Elite.
There are no secret societies running the world the power elites do it in plane sight. We
know their names from history and in the present. Metici, Borgas – parts of those
fortunes are in the 41 trillion. Rockefeller, Rothschild, Buffet are in the world today.
Robert Kagen and his forces which represent the 41 trillion ALWAYS get what they want and
they have for 500 years. Imagine, 500 years of taking more "profits" than any other faction
of the population. But it is not just business, there is also theft, the way England stole in
today's dollars 45 trillion dollars worth of goods from India – they simply set up a
shell game and took everything and paid nothing. This is why their fortunes grow so much
better than others – just outright theft. It is not a capitalist system, it is
Feudalism.
This basic block of Western capital is openly pro war because within the 41 trillion are
the arms corporations which they control just as one example.
The methods of this, possibly the most enduring power unit in human history, are clear
throughout the historical record. They are ruthless, ALWAYS advancing pushing probing looking
for opportunities. They never rest or give any quarter. Governments come and go, empires come
and go but the core capital under any and all conditions profits every year.
While the phrase was first written in the years after WWII "Global full spectrum
domination." has been the marching order for this capital for centuries.
This small group of elites will settle for nothing except everything. For them there is no
morality, no good guys or bad buys, just winners and losers and they have won every battle
for power and money for 500 years, even in years where things didn't go well they still made
more that the economic growth of the economy.
It is the power of that 41 trillion which is destroying the planet and making perpetual
war for their own pleasures and profit.
Talk of impeachment of a president or "The Constitution" changing the government are
useless acts unless you can come up with a plan to take the assets of these monsters and to
distribute them appropriately so that human institutions serve people instead of slaughtering
for profit elites.
It is going to be far more difficult to deal with entrenched elites with a 500 year
success record but until its power is finally dissipated.
Idimalink , February 17, 2019 at 12:08 pm
The FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies are the enemy. Their spooks must
exposed as perpetrators of crime; heinous crimes.
errorum propagationi , February 17, 2019 at 2:55 pm
"The FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies are the enemy. Their spooks must
exposed as perpetrators of crime; heinous crimes."
And yet despite the tough-talking, empty-rhetoric, Trump continues to bow to the same.
Their crimes continue. The NSA is STILL collecting all data from EVERY citizen of the U.S., yet Trump has ensured
even-greater secrecy of those actions by that agency. The CIA is STILL interfering in the politics of other countries, and STILL running
drugs.
The FBI continues to ignore crimes by the .001 percent (incluing pedophilia, child
trafficking, financial crimes, white collar crimes, etc.).
Trump continues to call for the draconian prosecution of those whom sought to expose the
actions of these agencies.
Propaganda only works when it isn't recognized as such.
Trump's actions are called the propaganda of diversion & distraction.
Both Trump and Hillary were HIGHLY unpopular, yet the mindless masses are forced into not
only accepting either, but ultimately defending the instilled "leader".
You are proof of the effectivness of that propaganda.
Trump is an Entertainer, first and foremost.
His job is to lead mere followers like you to believing the roles he plays, into accepting
the same wholly corrupted system. "Partisan" politics is increasingly being scripted like episodes of entertainment, like
the Jerry Springer show.
Have you ever bothered to consider that the largest "news" media are similarly owned by
the same corporations that own the largest entertainement media?
I used to work for a image & footage library ..the firms are using stock images, video
& sound for both their entertainment & "news". Have you ever bothered to examine the true underlying ownership of the highly consolidated
corporate media?
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc are all largely owned by the same firms, via large stock
holdings.
Trump is an Entertainer serving each of these subsidiaries.
The viewership/ratings of each has climbed.
The more "contention" (mere diversion & distraction) Trump creates, the more the loyal
viewers of these media continue to indulge in the nonsense.
"Partisan" followers, the sheep, are doing the same of their respective parties, each of
which are controlled by the same elite.
Don't believe it, take a look at the campaign finance & investment portfolios of the
largest candidates of each party (including the "Dems", "GOP", "Progs" and
"Libertarians").
The true "Deep State" is much larger than Trump.
Those few Agents he has called-out & sought to damage, are just small cogs in the much
larger system.
Absolutely nothing has changed. The mindless masses are so easily herded. Instincts of the Herd in Peace & War – Wilfred Trotter
Propaganda – Edward Bernays
The deep state kills presidents. It why Trump has his own security ..smart move. Trump tried to take them on and was called a TRAITOR ..and criminals like Brenner and
clapper and Haden work for MSNBC and CNN now? The USSR wasnt so blatant .
Spot on. Trump is PT Barnum, not Martin Luther King. He's not fighting to "save America
from the Deep State." Trump's a clown riding a unicycle juggling chainsaws. He's a circus
charlatan, not some hero demolishing the FBI to save John Q Public from the spooks. Sheep
indeed.
Scott Hunter , February 17, 2019 at 11:49 am
Spot on!!! Accountability is the next step Integrity is the key and has always been the
key to walking a path that brings contentment.
Thank you for your service John Kiriakou!!!
Billy , February 17, 2019 at 11:47 am
The Emsils reveal Hillary cheated Bernie. She needed to distract. Brennan, Clapper and the
FBI assisted her. When she lost they switched over from distract to removal mode. The entire
MSM is also complicate in this illegal coup. They're not fake news they're propagandist.
MSM fired Ed Shultz for wanting to cover Sanders . MSM fired Jesse Ventura for being anti war . MSM fiired Phil Donahue for being against the Iraq wars .. Brennan and Clapper and Haden are proved Bush criminals who now work for the MSM and CNN
liars ,war mongers and torture enthusiasts .
I like John and the information he puts out for us. But I just don't buy this. I see this
just as I did the 2016 election cycle for the republican party. A circus of over 21
candidates and everyone and the media all against Trump. But who got all the free time in the
media and ended up being the president? I didn't buy the fake disdain from the republicans
towards Trump because I knew they were licking their chops wanting him in their. With Trump
they could take the country to the right as far as they wanted. And here we are looking at a
fascist state now. The US has leaped right into the fire of the fourth reich. All that in
2016 was us being duped into a false illusion of Trump can't possibly win while the plan was
make him win. I honestly believe the whole 2016 election cycle was one big illusion to take
over the country. A coup over the population.
Trump and these intelligence agencies are working just fine together. This is all just
another illusion as the country continues to move towards fascism with the rest of the world.
Still working together in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Africa and a list of other countries, along
with right here among us is the FBI. After all, right there in the article it states as much.
These entities and Trump essentially have the same agenda. And what we;re getting is a dose
of perception management to duped us from the reality of it being the reality. And just like
the founder of this news site has taught us, the media is the tool to make it work for
them.
Anne Jaclard , February 17, 2019 at 9:19 pm
Agree that Trump is a corporate military-intelligence flunky like his predecessors but
that doesn't justify the FBI/CIA manipulation, as it was based merely on dovish (but ignored
in office, of course) campaign rhetoric. What if Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders, or somebody
better than either of them (neither are super great) get spied upon or ousted by a militarist
cabal for the same reasons?
Jeff Harrison , February 17, 2019 at 10:40 am
It can't happen here . I'm telling you my dear, it can't happen here. – Frank Zappa
in a tune of the same name.
But, John, it already has. Mark Felt, aka Deep Throat, pissed off that he wasn't made FBI
director at Hoover's death, brought down a President, Nixon, out of personal pique. He
revealed secrets that never should have been secrets to Woodward & Bernstein and brought
Nixon down. Our evil ways in the rest of the world have come home to roost. You spoke of the
Church committee's reforms. I doubt there's much left of Frank Church's reforms. The three
letter surveillance state is the new Praetorian Guard. There is naught to be done but disband
the whole lot of 'em if we want our democracy back. I know everybody will be screaming that
Oh NO! We can't do that! But, ah, yes we can (to steal someone else's bullshit line).
The Ticoes of Costa Rica, after they got their government back from the military after a 1948
coup simply disbanded the military. No more military to junta. Haven't had a coup since.
There's two trite but very true lines:
Bullshit walks and money talks,
What goes around comes around. (and it's starting to come around. We'd better do something
about it or we will regret it. But that would mean we'd have to give up our imperial
pretensions and we all know that's not going to happen.)
anon4d2 , February 17, 2019 at 9:43 pm
We could certainly re-purpose 80% of our military to building infrastructure in developing
nations, without any opposition from them or additional expense, and improve our security and
international standing. We could completely eliminate the unconstitutional spying upon
citizens without any opposition, and use the same employees for humanitarian purposes.
But of course oligarchy must first be deposed, which historically has required invasion or
revolution. Where oligarchy controls mass media and elections, education and activism won't
get us there. Invasion is no longer a likely path. So the revolution will be the bloodiest in
history, likely after the mass media are discredited, the economy ruined by foreign embargo,
and oligarchy no longer able to provide the bread and circus needed to quell the
peasants.
If that string of disasters does not happen, we may have a permanent tyranny, a society
that explicitly accepts and honors tyranny, a curse upon humanity until its destruction.
JOHN WHITE , February 17, 2019 at 10:29 am
THEY DID NOT COME CLOSE TO A COUP..
THE COUP IS STILL GOING ON ..
So now I know what the 25th amendment to the Constitution is about. Impeachment would be
messy incapacitation would be quick and half the public, feeling helpless, would soon
forget.
Discussion of this reminds me of the things we accused the Stalin regime of doing, which
they well may have. Here today, gone tomorrow.
We cannot be sure this is all true, but the mere fact that it is floating around is
chilling. Impeachment with its uncertain outcome would be messy, using the 25th amendment
would be relatively quick if all your ducks were lined up.
Can we describe the Trump syndrome as anything else than mass hysteria. It has gotten so
bad that no matter what Trump proposes, forces go to work to prevent it from happening lest
he get credit for it. The merit of what he proposes, be damned, it's his idea and we are not
going to let it happen.
Who and what is at risk. A besieged President, anxious to survive, can do crazy things
which his crazy enemies happen to believe are good ideas. Things like detente with Russia are
set aside as is an effort to achieve normal relations with North Korea. Things like creating
a crisis with Iran or pulling out of a nuclear treaty are either praised or accepted. It all started minus day one of this guys presidency and it just won't stop. Hard to say
how it could end, but the options are pretty
scary.
The authors point is that we have elections to decide who shall be president and the
intoxicated crew in Washington, New York and Hollywood need to accept that.
Eric32 , February 17, 2019 at 9:06 am
This FBI/CIA (plus British intelligence etc.) attempt to destroy and remove an elected
President will end the same way as the bank fraud that damaged the US economy 11 yrs ago.
Nothing real will be done, and the disease will just get deeper and more widespread.
MBeaver , February 17, 2019 at 9:51 pm
I often look at politics like I look at software.
If you have bugs, you fix them quickly before they can hurt your customers too much and they
decide to ditch your software or look for an alternative somewhere else.
Here they are being ignored for decades and decades and many people exploit them, because
they can flourish on them, like a criminal uses bugs in software to circumvent security. Like
parasites. But the vast majority and the system itself is getting damaged by them. People
adapt to them, and become as dishonest as the minority. It gets worse and worse until there
is no way back and ends in a disaster.
Dave , February 17, 2019 at 8:18 am
Are McCabe and others going to face any consequences for their actions? I have some
doubts.
Skip Scott , February 17, 2019 at 7:35 am
"McCabe said that Justice Department officials believed at the time that Trump may have
obstructed justice by firing Comey, and they worried that Trump was somehow under the
influence of the Russian government."
I think what the Intel Agencies were really concerned about was Trump's statement
"wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia." They were worried about detente, not
influence. Trump threatened to remove their number one bogeyman, which would put at risk
trillions of dollars for the MIC. What if he dared to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction
treaty? What if he dared to share intelligence regarding terrorists with Russia, as Obama
attempted before he was brought to heel? Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and
Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd" continues to ensure that Trump toes the line. The intel
agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the REAL
power.
("Trump has been emasculated by RussiaGate, and Mueller's "Theater of the Absurd"
continues to ensure that Trump toes the line.")
I quite agree, and with your comment in mind I'd say that one could quite rationally argue
that in fact a deep state coup "has actually taken place" and was in fact quite successful.
Trump will most certainly "not" be normalizing relations with Russia if he wants to remain
president. This is the power of the deep state carried out through relentless MSM propaganda,
evidence and "reality" be damned.
In such a world "voting" and "democracy" are simply fairy tales "told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury and signifying nothing." They exist only as meaningless abstractions used to
help insure we the populace remain compliant and don't take to the streets like the Yellow
Vests in France. Which of course is our only chance whatsoever to in any meaningfully way
impact this completely corrupt uber-violent corporate-feudal paradise we find ourselves now
inhabiting.
"The intel agencies don't need to remove him from power because they are the ones with the
REAL power." – spot on!
jadez , February 17, 2019 at 6:46 am
MAYBE MR John Kiriakou should familiarize himself with the Constitution..and the 25th
amendment which he acknowledges was to be used to "oust"..a sitting president.
i do not disagree or challenge his integrity regarding the actions of the agencies he
writes about yet at the same time to dismiss out of hand a constitutional avenue of removing
a president for say BEING an actual agent of a foreign government can not be dismissed based
strictly on the idea that presidents "come and go"!
Abby , February 18, 2019 at 12:29 am
I'm pretty sure that Kiriakou knows all about the constitution and the 25th amendment. The
problem that he's discussing here is that if a president is unfit to continue his presidency
then it's up to his cabinet and congress to remove him, not the intelligence agency's
job.
Where was the proof that Trump was being an actual agent of a foreign government? There
was none at the time of this attempted coup and so far Mueller hasn't shown any. Manafort is
guilty of breaking tax laws, not anything to do with collusion with people in Russia. Nor has
he shown that anyone else was or is either. And do you honestly think that if a president was
working with a foreign government that congress would just sit patiently by as Mueller
dragged his feet for two years looking into that? I think not.
Seby , February 17, 2019 at 5:02 am
Excellent in more detailed analysis of this power struggle in the US plutocracy at NEO
recently.
3 Major Divisions in the American Ruling Class by Caleb Maupin.
To precis
Division #1: Saudi Wahabbis vs. The Muslim Brotherhood
Division #2: The Pentagon vs. Intel Agencies
Division #3: The Rich vs. The Ultra-Rich
"... Baker said McCabe was cool, calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time." ..."
"... According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time." ..."
Two Trump Cabinet officials were "ready to support" a DOJ scheme to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump , according
to
Bloomberg and
Fox News , citing closed-door testimony from the FBI's former top lawyer, James Baker - who said that the claim came from Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the
transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book. -
Fox News
While Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials, he says that McCabe and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page approached him to
relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including their discussions of the 25th Amendment scheme. "I was being told by some combination
of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he -- this was what was
related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president's Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it,
an action under the 25th Amendment," Baker told the Congressional committees.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of a sitting president from office through various mechanisms - including the majority
of a president's Cabinet agreeing that the commander-in-chief is incapable of performing his duties.
Rosenstein - who is slated to leave the Justice Department in the near future, has denied the claims. Baker said McCabe was cool,
calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably
confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time
because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So
I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time."
McCabe, meanwhile
told "60 Minutes" in an interview set to air Sunday night that Rosenstein was concerned about Trump's "capacity."
According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet
officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity
and about his intent at that point in time."
"Rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president?"
asks CBS News anchor Scott Pelly, to which McCabe replied: " That's correct. Counting votes or possible votes. "
The New York Times
first reported
last year that McCabe alleged in memos that Rosenstein had talked about using the 25th Amendment to oust Trump -- or wearing a
wire to surreptitiously monitor the president -- in the hectic days in May 2017 after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director.
At the time, Rosenstein disputed the reporting. -
WaPo
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the 25th Amendment scheme a "
bureaucratic coup " led by enemies of President Trump. On Sunday morning, Graham said he would subpoena McCabe and Rosenstein
"if that's what it takes" to get to the bottom of the 25th Amendment claim.
On Thursday, the DOJ issued a statement claiming that Rosenstein rejects McCabe's version of events "as inaccurate and factually
incorrect," and also denied that Rosenstein ever approved wearing a "wire" to record Trump.
"The deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," reads the DOJ statement. "As the deputy
attorney general previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment,
nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."
McCabe, meanwhile, walked back some of his "60 Minutes" statements . On Friday a spokeswoman for the former Deputy Director said:
"Certain statements made by Mr. McCabe, in interviews associated with the release of his book, have been taken out of context and
misrepresented," adding "To clarify, at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th
Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."
Baker acknowledged during his testimony that he was not directly involved in the May 2017 discussions, rather, McCabe and Page
approached him contemporaneously following a meeting with Rosenstein in the days following former FBI Director James Comey's firing.
"I had the impression that the deputy attorney general had already discussed this with two members in the president's Cabinet
and that they were onboard with this concept already," said Baker.
Question: "Do you know what direction that went? Was it Mr. Rosenstein seeking out members of the Cabinet looking to pursue
this 25th Amendment approach or was it the other way around?"
Baker: "What I recall being said was that the Deputy Attorney General had two members of the Cabinet. So he – how they came
to be had, I don't know, but "
Question: "So he had two members, almost like he was taking the initiative and getting the members?"
Baker: "That would be speculation on my part." -
Via Fox News
Baker also suggested that "Lisa and Andy" did not know the names of the Cabinet officials who were on board with the 25th Amendment
scheme.
Baker testified in October that the alleged discussions took place during an uncertain and anxious time at the FBI and DOJ
after Comey's termination, and that the mood was "pretty dark":
Question: "Did people tell you that the DAG (Deputy Attorney General) was upset?"
Baker: "Yes."
Question: "Did they tell you that he was making jokes?"
Baker: "No."
Question: "Did they tell you that..."
Baker: " This was not a joking sort of time. This was pretty dark. " -
Via Fox News
"Our choice now seems to be between a "new war" and a new world. As always, the forces of reaction and wealth are telling us
we have no choice but war, and no right or power to decide. They are calling for a secret investigation, a secret conviction,
a secret method of execution, and a totally secret war abroad.
"The American people as a whole are the only ones in the world who have the right to decide on a national response to this
tragedy, and it must be one that takes into account the rights of all the other peoples and nations of the world."
CNN: Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo weighs in on who he believes wrote the
anonymously authored op-ed published in the New York Times that was highly critical of
President Donald Trump.
Caputo also said the real writer of the piece is a ghostwriter in terms of looking for the
person behind the piece. Caputo said he believes the person is a woman.
"The language of the op-ed is useless to look at because it's a ghostwriter," he said.
"I think, first of all, this person will never admit it. In my mind, the author of this
op-ed believes that she is a hero to the American people," Caputo also said.
MICHAEL CAPUTO, FMR. TRUMP ADVISOR: I'm fairly certain I know who it is. I've been going
through this parlor game like everybody else has and I am also completely 100% certain that
the person who wrote this is on the list of people who said they didn't write it.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Alright. So who do you think it is?
CAPUTO: I'm not going to go into that. My attorney tells me it's a bad idea. But I can
tell you think...
WHITFIELD: You consulted your attorney. You said I think I know who this is based on
certain language that was and you consulted your attorney and your attorney says don't reveal
it?
CAPUTO: Right. Based on language. Based on the fact that I believe these kinds of people
leave a trail of crumbs when they are trying to deceive people around them. This is the way
it is always is. And if the president looks at key departments of his government that has
been purged of all Trump supporters that is a good place to start, and that actually exists.
Trump supporters have been purged from this government for 18 months. Last week I spent the
evening with several friends of mine from the Trump campaign: all of them have been forced
out of the Trump administration. ...
I don't think this person is in the White House... this person really has to be high up.
It's got to be a deputy, secretary-level, or higher, otherwise The New York Times is
misleading people.
WHITFIELD: Do you believe it is someone who has taken an oath?
CAPUTO: I believe so...
The White House political office and others have kind of shrugged off the idea about
losing the House and maybe being impeached because the Senate won't do anything. They won't
convict the president on the charges of impeachment. But I think when we find out who this
person is, and the president team should find out, we're going to find out this person has
real deep and abiding ties to Congress and this op-ed is one step closer not just to
impeachment but conviction...
I started with this. Who is the person who I believe hates the president the most? Who is
the person in the administration who has screamed about him in their own private office and
gone forward and purged their entire office of Trump people? ...
I think, first of all, this person will never admit it. In my mind, the author of this
op-ed believes that she is a hero to the American people.
First, let me say I voted for Trump as a "Disrupter" and to that end he has exceeded
expectations.
The book starts out great through the first 5 or 6 chapters, but then becomes a bit
convoluted. The bottom line of the book and reality is that Trump is surrounded by apprentice
scoundrels, and that he is the boss scoundrel.
He demands loyalty but gives none. As a Former Marine I would not follow him into battle;
I would never have the opportunity because he and his sons would never go into harm's
way.
The best of the book was the hinted forthcoming bombshells, that never exploded. Woodward
dropped the ball on this one, and as an author myself, it's nice to see even the big boys,
Simon & Schuster, have editing issues.
"... Rather than being a revelatory, shocking look behind the curtain of an administration run by the single dumbest man to ever hold his office, the book just confirms the stories we've already heard, mixing in additional commentary from people in or close to the White House, mostly former employees who clearly still agree with Trump's agenda, even if they could no longer stand the man himself. ..."
"... Woodward presents anecdotes from these individuals--people like Sen. Lindsay Graham, a renown proponent of endless wars in the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist, an out-and-proud xenophobe and fascist--without commentary or context, which has the odd effect of presenting these people only in contrast and comparison to Trump himself. ..."
A frustratingly neutral collection of accounts from morally questionable people.
Trump is really, really bad at being President. This isn't news to anyone who has been
following the leaks, rumors, announcements, policies, and tweets coming out of the White
House for the last nineteen months.
Rather than being a revelatory, shocking look behind the
curtain of an administration run by the single dumbest man to ever hold his office, the book
just confirms the stories we've already heard, mixing in additional commentary from people in
or close to the White House, mostly former employees who clearly still agree with Trump's
agenda, even if they could no longer stand the man himself.
Woodward presents anecdotes from
these individuals--people like Sen. Lindsay Graham, a renown proponent of endless wars in
the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist, an out-and-proud xenophobe and
fascist--without commentary or context, which has the odd effect of presenting these people
only in contrast and comparison to Trump himself.
One unfamiliar with Bannon, for example,
could come away from the book thinking that he was a fairly reasonable person (rather than a
racist, white nationalist) because he is only ever shown as a foil to the ongoing circus of
incompetence that is the Trump administration.
This is Woodward's style, of course; he
presents himself as an almost entirely neutral presence, merely transcribing the things he
learned, but when discussing such dangerous and reprehensible people, a paragraph here and
there dedicated to reminding readers what, exactly, these people claim to believe would have
been appreciated additional context.
Essentially, this book is just Michael Wolfe or Omarosa's stories, only drier and with
more footnotes.
"... What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. ..."
"... Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal -- he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires. ..."
"... Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object. ..."
What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to
celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it
would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack
against Donald Trump.
As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals
with issues of style -- it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment
strongly dislike Trump's style -- and about people in important positions in Trump's
surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him -- that is
hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and
dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether
that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he
just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have
said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely
loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is
allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So,
not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the
scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but -- if it
is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book -- I doubt it
because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump
for any conceivable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily
promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this
to some degree -- after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and
Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret
services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge
its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of Trump haters
-- this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most
Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he
threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a
Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I
think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump
Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who
invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece.
The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal --
he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not
escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough
Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his
neoconservative desires.
Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with
"Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like
Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian
leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In
contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted
to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object.
@Adrian E. What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many
anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents
were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been
the main line of attack against Donald Trump.
As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals
with issues of style - it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment
strongly dislike Trump's style - and about people in important positions in Trump's
surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him - that is
hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and
dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether
that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he
just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have
said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely
loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is
allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So,
not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the
scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but - if it is
to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book - I doubt it
because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump
for any conceiveable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily
promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this
to some degree - after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and
Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret
services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge
its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of his haters -
this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump
haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened
to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet
and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more
demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course,
of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just
exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The
author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal - he
wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate
tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian
diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his
neoconservative desires. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least
compatible with "Russiagate" - Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against
countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and
authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative
ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is
that he wanted to have Assad killed - something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly
object. Very good observations. Maybe the "kill Assad" ploy is not intended for domestic
consumption but rather to further undermine Trump's working relationship with Putin –
just as with the of the phoney Russian agent indictment which wast timed precisely to disrupt
the Helsinki summit.
History is very clear who runs the media for those who are in the know.
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
September 1, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government
has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute
worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.
Historians know that very few people understand great historical events when they happen.
My idea is that this now is the case.
Never before in history did the leader of an empire understand that that empire could not
survive, and act accordingly.
The British empire was already not sustainable, financially, before 1914. Britain had to
give up the two fleet standard, the situation where the British fleet was superior to the
next two biggest fleets. Obama had to give up the two war standard, the USA went to one and a
half war. What a half war accomplishes one can see in Syria.
The British empire fell apart through WWII, Churchill the undertaker. For this reason, I
suspect, are the peace proposals that Rudolf Hess brought to Scotland in May 1941 still
secret. France got a generous peace, logical to assume that Hitler would propose the same to
Great Britain, the empire he admired.
The British example makes two things clear: what should have been clear prior to 1914 was
not clear, or was ignored, and the price of unwilling, or not capable of understanding
history at the moment it happens becomes clear. Britain did not have a Deep State, one might
say, on the other hand, one can be of the opinion that the British Deep State did exist. A
conflict as now in the USA never existed in Great Britain.
What would have happened if say Chamberlain would have acted as Trump does know, anybody's
guess. Chamberlain did not want war, but he also did not want to end British imagined power,
he belonged to the Thirtyniners, those with the illusion that Great Britain was ready for war
in 1939.
As in 1917, the USA had to rescue Britain, but this time the price was high: opening the
empire to foreign competition, on top of that, FDR's lofty statements, the Atlantic Charter,
in fact the end of all colonial European empires.
@Buckwheat President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the
American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt
but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope
for traitors.
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American
government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but
the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope
for traitors.
The media controls the minds of the mob, and presents itself as vox populi .
Corruption has been exposed, and the media admits to it, endorses it, and encourages
more.
So, whaddya figure? 20 years to total economic collapse? Who's gonna feed the messicans?
Oh! The humanity! Oh, Rome, do not burn!
"Shining city on a hill" and all that bullshit. Turn out the lights.
@Deschutes I didn't like Clinton, but I think Trump is as bad, probably worse. Look at
the EPA under Trump, it's a fucking joke with fossil fuel shills like Pruitt gutting much
needed laws to protect environment and people. Look at Education secretary DeVoss: it does
NOT get any worse: a billionaire christian fundamentalist wacko billionaire who bought her
way into that post funding the GOP/Trump ticket!? She's the epitome of what the 'Trump
voters' ostensibly hate: a billionaire class aka 'Rome on the Potomac' as this author calls
it, the plutocracy who own and run the show while the proletariat slave away at their office
temp jobs, or worse yet amazon.com sweatshop, etc. DeVoss is privatizing education so that
christian fundies can have their kids taught 'gawd made the world in 7 days' instead of
Darwin's evolution. Look at Trumps Atty General Sessions: he's a reactionary fossil from the
1950s who wants to illegalize weed? Roll back sensible drug policy? He's a fucking disaster.
And look at what Trump is doing for Israel!? Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and
Kishner sucking up to Netanyahoo, doing his bidding like an Israel firster? This is all good?
This is what the disenfranchised Trump supporter voted for and had in mind??
Trump is a fucking awful trainwreck. ' Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, '
If this makes Netanyahu happy for some time, at negligible cost to the USA, smart move.
At the same time, Trump can claim 'see how I love Israel'.
For me the same as the fake attacks on Syria.
Show.
@Wizard of Oz You seem to be using language like Alice's Humpty Dumpty. "Zionism" is at
least a little bit constrained in meaning by its being a movement to restore the Jewish
people as currently understood to the land of Israel (Judea and Samaria principally which
creates special difficulties...) with Jerusalem as it's capital, and, I suppose to maintain
them there. You are absolutely correct.
But it also includes protection of Israel.
And what is the best protection of Israel?
..
To control the most powerful country in the world ergo USA
..
And what is even better protection of Israel?
To to rule the world.
..
What is wrong or evil in this plan?
Nothing! it is good plan.
..
So where is the snag?
..
Complications in executing this plan.
According to the Washington Post, Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice on September
11, 2001 in the final minutes of Flight 77. Her last words to him were, "What do I tell the
pilot to do?"
"She called from the plane while it was being hijacked," said Theodore Olson -- 42nd
Solicitor General of the United States. "I wish it wasn't so, but it is."
However, prosecution exhibit P200054 (attached) in United States v.
Zacarias Moussaoui -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/
exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html -- shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone
call -- it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds!
Both accounts of Barbara Olson's phone calls -- the Solicitor General's and the
prosecution's in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui -- cannot be correct.
Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were "journalists" (I use
that term loosely). The difference today, is that "professional journalism" is now blatantly
showing its liberal communistic bias.
From "Remember the Maine" in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine
explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty's extolling the "virtues" of communism while
one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking
place, in order to force the "collectivization" of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite
outright lying about the American military's effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam "Tet
offensive" (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a "nasty craft". In
cronkite's case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite's
lies about the supposed American "defeat" were publicized. Cronkite's lies gave the North
Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American "news media" on their
side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the
so-called "mainstream media". All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over
Cuba's Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist "paradise".
Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their "profession" for what it really is
with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same "mainstream media"
is calling for the "licensing" of journalists–something that would have been unheard of
(and treasonous) in previous decades
Professional journalism is its own worst enemy
We're surprised the tools of the Oligarch Class remain loyal to their paymasters? Comey and
Müller both received very lucrative board-seat assignments for looking the other way
when appropriate, or digging a little deeper when asked.
"In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our
national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of
national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an
informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic
government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free
most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and
free press, there cannot be an enlightened people."
"... Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The documents were real, but only certain documents were released. ..."
"... Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of the JFK assassination! ..."
He graduated from the CIA university (aka Yale) then went to CIA basic training as a naval
intelligence officer for five years, then to the Washington Post. This is why he was allowed
White House access by the Trump Neocons, despite is record as a back stabber to those who
oppose the Neocon agenda. The Washington Post itself was co-founded by the CIA. Woodward was
a key player in the last CIA coup when Nixon was ousted, not too long after they disposed of
troublesome President Kennedy. I noted some of this in my 2010 blog:
Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned
CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The
documents were real, but only certain documents were released. Prouty wrote the other
reason for this "leak" was to upset the Nixon administration, which it was trying to
destabilize in hopes of ousting Nixon.
That President was upset that the CIA refused to provide him with requested documents
concerning the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. Nixon also angered the "Power Elite" by
withdrawing American troops from their profitable business venture in Vietnam and improving
relations with Red China.
Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as
a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just
happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of
the JFK assassination!
This piece makes Trump look like a credible president – that is, if he is to be judged
by his campaign promises to the American electorate who voted him in. This is only partly
true. Recall that Trump did make unequivocal promises: "We will stop racing to topple foreign
regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with,". and "We will stop
racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved
with," Not long after such promises, he announced he would be sending more troops to
Afghanistan. His bombing of Syria and illegally keeping American boots in that country surely
flies in the face of such promises especially in light of statements that American troops
will not leave that country any time soon, in keeping with America's zeal for fighting
Israel's wars. This piece portrays Trump as intrepid and true to his word. Yet, like many of
his predecessors, the morbid fear of the pro-Israeli lobby remains a defining feature of US
foreign policy matters. Neither can Trump exonerate himself from the ongoing tragedy in Yemen
emboldening the Saudis and their Emirati allies with the sale of billions of dollars of arms
to these medieval monarchies, not to mention the logistical support given them by the US.
What is interesting that the first eight reviews were all written by neocons.
The book looks like an implicit promotion of Pence. Which is probably not
what Dems want ;-).
Notable quotes:
"... I fell in love with Woodward's writing with "All the President's Men." It inspired me to work in journalism. But Woodward has lost his touch. His "reporting" feels second-hand and arm's length. Each Chapter in his Source Notes leads with this disclaimer: "The information in the chapter comes primarily from multiple deep background interviews and firsthand sources." We have no way of knowing what firsthand sources even means – an article he read in the New York Times whose author he's friends with? ..."
"... The review mentions biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by Michael D'Antonio and Peter Eisner . For former Harvard alumni this is an extremely naive review, that is completely devoid of understanding of political forces that are shaping the country and first of all the crisis of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Mike Pence, the "Shadow President" and Trump's hand picked successor, will from many indications become president in the months following the November 6 election. ..."
I went into this book thinking that it would confirm all of my deepest fears about Trump and give me more reasons to
dislike him. At the end of the book, I had the distinct impression that Trump's presidency is not as bad as it is often
portrayed.
Some of Trump's ideas are not so bad -- for example, the book spends a lot of time on Afghanistan. Trump has for a long
time believed the war was a mistake, that there is no way to "win," and that it is a perpetual loss of our country's
treasures.
The book spends a lot of time showing how Trump fought the "swamp" to come up with a strategy to get out -- and failed.
Of course, many other stories in the book confirmed my belief that he is a disaster for a president.
The book jumps around in time and topic a lot, making it difficult to follow. Kind of like Trump himself.
Melanie Gilbert, September 12, 2018
Deep Fear
My Kindle book loaded at 12:30 Tuesday morning , and I stayed up until 6:30 a.m. reading this fascinating and alarming
story. The scariest part of this massive tome is the sheer hubris of everyone in President Trump's orbit including the
author, famed Watergate reporter, Bob Woodward. They all think they are more presidential than the actual president, and that
sense of entitlement and arrogance drives this tell-all narrative.
Even though I agree that Trump is mentally unfit to be Commander-in-Chief – and Woodward cites many troubling incidents that
point to a memory-impaired leader – it feels as if Woodward operated under the theory of selection bias, finding sources who
would confirm his thesis. I don't know what's scarier, a president who is off the rails, or a staff that helps keep him there
while they are busy running the country the way they see fit (except when the crazy uncle escapes his handlers and spouts off
on Twitter.)
Woodward, a veteran reporter, and the man (with Carl Bernstein) who broke the Nixon-era Watergate crime with a source the
known only as "Deep Throat" falls for and magnifies their conceit. The real story isn't Trump, it's his unelected and
unconstitutional enablers (senior staff, family, media, lobbyists, rogue governments) who act like they are running a shadow
government (surreptitiously taking papers off his desk, screening his briefing materials.) Woodward's story will feed Trump's
main argument that there's a Deep State at work in this country.
I fell in love with Woodward's writing with "All the President's Men." It inspired me to work in journalism. But Woodward
has lost his touch. His "reporting" feels second-hand and arm's length. Each Chapter in his Source Notes leads with this
disclaimer: "The information in the chapter comes primarily from multiple deep background interviews and firsthand sources."
We have no way of knowing what firsthand sources even means – an article he read in the New York Times whose author he's
friends with?
This book is beneath Woodward's skill and reputation. You can basically retrieve the same message in "Unhinged" a much
briefer and far more readable format - though no less disturbing account - of working in the Trump White House.
NOTES: The review mentions biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by
Michael
D'Antonio and Peter Eisner
. For former Harvard alumni this is an extremely naive review, that is completely devoid of
understanding of political forces that are shaping the country and first of all the crisis of
neoliberalism.
Donald Trump's Demotion & Mike Pence's Promotion! When and How?
Bob Woodward has done it again. "Fear" is a remarkable and important book, especially
because it is so current and revealing and is vouched for by this very credible reporter.
Woodward's book confirms in much greater detail many earlier and less credible reports, plus
many others --- establishing clearly that Donald Trump is not fit to be the US president ---
politically, intellectually, psychologically or morally. Moreover, his erratic behavior is a
threat to US national security, as Woodward's book and recent TV interviews make very clear.
Of course, most of the media attention on this book has been and will continue to be on
Woodward's many shocking scoops. The most important question, however, that the book raises,
for me at least, is "When and how will Trump's reckless rule be retired?"
Mike Pence, the "Shadow President" and Trump's hand picked successor, will from many
indications become president in the months following the November 6 election. That seems
to be a high probability, even without Special Counsel Robert Mueller's likely devastating
report on the Russian conspiracy to influence illegally the 2016 presidential elections and
the related cover up obstructing Mueller's investigation of this conspiracy . The only
unknown now is when and how Trump goes--- by the impeachment process or by simple resignation
like Nixon did.
We can expect Pence will then give Trump a full pardon, after Trump fully pardons some
family members and close associates. Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort need not hold their
breath waiting for a pardon. Trump, some of his family members and close associates will, of
course, still be at risk of state law prosecutions, expecially in NY.
Trump has long used fear to exercise power over others. Fear, as Machiavelli strongly
recommended five centuries ago to a corrupt pope's nephew, is preferable to and more
effective than kindness. Paradoxically, Trump's own deep personal fear of failure still
drives him desperately--- any means are justified to reach Trump's top goals of personal
profit and glory forever. Any means is OK, including even orphaning innocent infants at the
Mexican border, while other immigrants are welcomed to work temporarily at Mar-a-Lago.
Woodward's book just reinforces these observations many have already made.
It is amazing to me that many of the so-called "adults in the room" cannot see that Trump
is misbehaving as he always did. He cannot be changed, certainly not now and not by the many
handlers selected seemingly because Trump can dominate them. That said, Trump still has more
than two years remaining on his term!
I have strong reactions to Woodward's many disturbing disclosures, as (1) a former Harvard
Law assistant to Archibald Cox (prior to his being the unforgettable Watergate Prosecutor and
nailing Nixon), (2) a former high school chum of Rudy Guiliani (now an unimpressive key Trump
advisor), (3) a former law firm colleague of Bob Khuzami (now the impressive head of NYC
federal investigations of Trump criminal matters) and (4) a father and grandfather.
... ... ...
At 75 years old, Woodward clearly had a purpose in this voluntary and prodigious effort to
research and write this book--- to flush out the true Donald Trump and show the danger he
poses for US national security. Woodward, a Navy veteran like John McCain before him, is also
a patriot. To paraphrase Trump, Woodward shows vividly that Trump's behavior is "very sad and
really disgusting".
The media will have a field day with some of the troubling Trump episodes Woodward
reports. Many persons cited in the book will challenge some of his reports. To be expected
and perhaps understandable, given Trump's fiery temper about those he thinks are in any way
disloyal to him. The facts will nevertheless prevail, as they have mostly for Woodward's
earlier books about the many presidents who immediately preceded Trump.
More important, however, than specific episodes, is what the confluence of these troubling
episodes clearly shows --- Trump is clearly unfit to be president! The longer he remains, the
greater the risk in our nuclear age for the US, and the world as well. It is well to recall
the near catastrophe last January when a Hawaiian technician pressed the wrong button
indicating a non-existent "imminent" North Korean missile attack, following Trump's reckless
rhetoric about the real North Korean threat. This must have sent a real chill down the spines
of the leaders of all nuclear nations, and many others as well.
Will Trump then finish his first term? Very doubtful, it appears.
If the Democrats win a House majority in less than two months, prompt impeachment
proceedings and numerous House investigations of Trump and his corrupt cronies appear to be
inevitable. That dooms Trump.
Even if the Democrats remain the minority, impeachment is still likely to occur in my view
as Mueller's efforts continue --- they cannot be stopped now. They will continue even if
Mueller is fired as they continued after Nixon fired Archibald Cox. Moreover, there is a
reasonable prospect that one or more of Trump's children and/or in-laws could soon be
indicted.
Trump will after November be an increasingly unnecessary liability for Republicans, the
GOP. Only 32% of voters currently polled even think Trump is honest. He has already done what
the GOP and its billionaire backers like the Kochs and Devoses most wanted --- a major tax
cut for the wealthiest, reckless deregulation, insuring a right wing judiciary majority,
reducing drastically Federal revenues needed to fund the social safety net, et al.
Moreover, it seems unlikely that Trump will be able to handle the steadily growing
pressure he faces. He may even elect to resign as Nixon did. Pence can finish up to the
cheers of the Kochs, Devoses, et al.
For a fuller picture of what to expect from Pence when Trump "retires", please see the new
comprehensive, readable and detailed biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, Michael D'Antonio, and by his co-author, Peter
Eisner. This book's findings dovetail nicely with the findings in "Fear".
Unlike Woodward, D'Antonio even got, for his recent excellent Trump biography, hours of
direct interviews of Trump before the 2016 elections, until Trump abruptly ended the
interviews apparently concerned that D'Antonio was writing a truthful book based on facts,
not on Trump's limitless lies and specious spin. We now know from this important book on
Pence why it is very unlikely that Pence will ever be able to clean up Donald Trump's mess.
We also can understand much better why Trump recently predicted that stock markets would
crash if he were to be impeached. Not too great an endorsement of his successor, Pence, by a
reckless and incompetent boss who has now witnessed up close for almost two years the
non-stop cheerleading of the "Shadow President", Mike Pence.
Pence successfully strived during the last two years behind the scenes, with Trump's
apparent blessings, to advance his repressive and regressive fundamentalist Christian
remaking of American society, including through administration and judicial right-wing
appointments and adoption of fundamentalist social policies, like curtailing legal abortions
and even limiting contraception access. Significantly, these policies mostly benefit in the
end the already "uberrich" top 0.01% of Americans at the expense of the 99.99 % less
fortunate--- how Christian is that?
Trump's and Pence's unfair tax cuts and excessive deregulation can readily be fixed by
Democrats when they regain power. But Trump and Pence have already changed the Federal
judiciary with their many right wing judges appointed for life. That is not so easily
fixed.
This is scary stuff for a religiously diverse nation with constitutional safeguards of
religious freedom that were extremely important for good reason to our Founding Fathers. They
rejected a theocracy as well as a monarchy !
By providing a brisk and insightful history of Pence's personal and political journey, we
are able with this book to see behind Pence's perpetual smile and smooth style. It is not a
very pretty picture.
All, even Trump supporters, should read this book to understand better the threat Pence
poses even for Trump. After the midterm elections, the "uberrich" will know they can fulfill
all their remaining political and economic dreams through Pence, without having to put up any
longer with Trump's erratic and at times almost bizarre policies and behavior. By
mid-November, Trump will need Pence more than Pence will need Trump.
It is not surprising the Omarosa recently observed on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show that
she thinks one of Pence's staff was the author of the unprecedented and anonymous New York
times Op Ed column that further undercuts Trump and re-inforces some of Woodward's
revelations. As to be expected, Pence offers to swear under oath that HE did not write the Op
Ed column, which denial leaves room that one of his staffers wrote it, no?
"Fear" and "The Shadow Presidency" raise a very ironic possibility in my mind. If Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's report, after the midterm elections in November, indicates that
Trump and Pence were both implicated in Russian election conspiracy and/or in the subsequent
cover-up, both of them could be removed from office or worse by a Congress forced by public
outrage to act on Mueller's report. Even Nixon's base abandoned him once the true facts were
widely known.
Pence often played a key role in the 2016 campaign, as well as during the two years since.
Who knows what he said and did in secret? Who knows if Pence was recorded by Amarosa, an
evangelical pastor, or Michael Cohen, a "tell all" third rate lawyer or someone else at the
White House, including possibly Trump himself. I suspect that by now, Mueller knows!
If that happens, Nancy Pelosi could succeed after next January to the presidency as
Speaker of the House, third in line after the President and Vice President. So much then for
the great Trump/Pence strategy.
The Pence book makes very clear why Pence is to be feared, perhaps even more than Trump.
The "god" of Trump is Trump --- in that sense, he is obvious and usually predictable. Pence's
"god" is much darker and more dangerous, as well as unpredictable, as this book has confirmed
for me. It may be that a needy and greedy Trump is a safer bet than a surreptitious and
smiling religious zealot, Pence.
Pence legitimated Trump with the important and united fundamentalist voter base, who voted
by over 80% to elect Trump! Trump also won 52% of Catholics' votes, while only 46% of the
national vote. Who will legitimate Pence? This book suggests "good" fundamentalists should
now vote against Pence if they ever find their Christian moorings again!
Pence appears determined to advance a repressive and regressive fundamentalist evangelical
theocracy, even though most Americans, including most Christians, have no interest in a
theocracy, Christian or otherwise. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the brutal
post-Reformation religious wars that some of their not too distant relatives had fled Europe
to avoid.
Interestingly, Pence was a Catholic altar boy and Trump attended for two years a Jesuit
college, Fordham. And the current four male Supreme Court conservative Catholic Justices and
the newly nominated likely to be Justice, Brett Kavanagh, were also raised Catholic. Four of
these five also went to Catholic schools --- Clarence Thomas to Jesuit Holy Cross College,
Neil Gorsuch and Kavanagh to Jesuit Georgetown Prep and John Roberts to La Lumiere School.
Samuel Alito was raised in a traditional Italian American Catholic family environment.
Looks like this "Iago" op-ed injected the poison of mutual suspicion into Trump administration: "Cabinet secretaries quickly
lined up to plead their innocence of any involvement, playing Bukharin to Trump's Stalin. Who wrote the op-ed? Someone by the name
of "Not Me." An internal administration manhunt (womanhunt?) has allegedly launched to unmask the
evildoer."
The op-ed itself was a jejune and mediocre example of
a time-honored American pastime, talking smack about one's boss behind his back. On its own
terms, it deserved at most a brief period of public mockery before fading away to something less
than an historical footnote.
But then Trump responded swiftly and decisively from his favorite bully pulpit, Twitter.
As for the alleged internal "resistance" the anonymous writer claims to belong to, it seems
to have fled the scene. Cabinet secretaries quickly lined up to plead their innocence of any
involvement, playing Bukharin to Trump's Stalin. Who wrote the op-ed? Someone by the name of
"Not Me." An internal administration manhunt (womanhunt?) has allegedly launched to unmask the
evildoer.
"... kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none of them are on our side, Trump and his included. ..."
"... @Big Al ..."
"... "With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period." ..."
"... "With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period." ..."
"... @WoodsDweller ..."
"... @WoodsDweller ..."
"... to take criminal action, ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... to take criminal action, ..."
"... Leaks to the media are equated with espionage. ..."
"... Leaks to the media are equated with espionage. ..."
This, according to author Paul Craig Roberts. In his urgent and compelling essay, he breaks the discovery down piece by piece.
You'll want to follow the link below and read it yourself for the full effect of the logic in action. Here are a few of his key
assertions:
The op-ed is a forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no
senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it
undermines the character of the writer.
The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed
extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times
has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the
New York Times about anything.
Roberts is convinced that this obviously forged op-ed is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion
throughout the senior level. Unfortunately, Trump has fallen for the hoax and may not realize his mistake before significant damage
is done.
The New York Times motive for this deception, and the reason for the op-ed in the first place, is to serve the interests
of the military/security complex, which has long been the newspaper's primary objective. They desperately seek to compel a paranoid
nation to hold on to the enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace.
For example, the alleged "senior official" misrepresents, as does the New York Times , President Trump's efforts
to reduce dangerous tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators, such
as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un" over America's "allied, like-minded nations."
This is the same non-sequitur that the New York Times has expressed endlessly.
Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times
has never explained, and neither does the "senior official."
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever received, is a dictator? Putin stepped
down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators
step down and sit out for 6 years?
The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a "deadly Russian nerve agent," an event
for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire
Skripal event rests only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it was: to
box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who attacked the Skripals with a
deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior
official in any administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York Times
does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget from any reduction in the "enemy
threat."
Roberts points out another favorite attack on President Trump used by the New York Times, that he is unstable and
unfit for office. He notes that even the wording of the attack is reproduced in the fake op-ed:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which
would start a complex process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior official."
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a senior official would write
that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered removing him from office? What is this statement other than a
deliberate effort to produce a constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC,
and the New York Times . A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all about. The level
of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history.
This op-ed hoax puts people in grave danger, all for the financial gain of the war profiteers. There is not a politician left
in America that has the nerve to stand up against this atrocity. They are all owned and fearful; they know full well a factual
and moral criticism against these inhumane wars and designated enemies will instantly destroy their careers. They will be banished
from the Capitol. It is up to the people themselves to denounce the coup government that is waging these illegal wars and destabilizing
the world.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of
Donald Trump, together with the self-interested power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the
Democratic Party, are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out their hate
and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and peoples of the world act now
to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us all.
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending
the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup government
that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should be
used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter
sentiment "increases significantly" when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid -- including
money and weapons -- should not be provided to such countries.
The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military interventions,
with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action overseas
@Pluto's
Republic
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending
the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup
government that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should
be used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The
latter sentiment "increases significantly" when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military
aid -- including money and weapons -- should not be provided to such countries.
The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military
interventions, with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action
overseas
I'm not as amazed as I might have been before I learned about the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921
for the sole purpose of forcing US involvement in wars around the world.
The people refused to do it, saw no point in it, so the bankers had to do it themselves.
#1
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
Insouciant - showing a casual lack of concern; indifferent.
PCR overuses the word, but it is basically a dig at "the exceptional nation". He means we are so arrogant that we can't be
concerned to inform ourselves about the facts or their implications. I guess you could say it means ignorant, but its a kind of
willful, fingers in the ears ignorance.
Not out of ignorance, but because he's too damned polite.
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply did
not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment
on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what it
was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am
beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags
jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely
with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
The op-ed is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that
no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor
of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position
to lend weight to his dissent.
This is exactly why I used William Ruckelhaus' resignation from the Nixon Administration as an example of an insider using
his reputation and honor to call attention to what Nixon wanted to do by firing Archibald Cox.
Another aspect of Roberts' essay is something that is very important to me personally and that is what would be the long term
damage done to the country by those calling for Trump's impeachment or removal via the 25th Amendment. And that does not take
into consideration the frightening prospect of Pence becoming President.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any of these conspirators
given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions
between nuclear powers? The next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions
that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and putting America at risk."
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply
did not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment
on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what
it was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I
am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two
red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely
with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump
from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none
of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused
his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump's presidency, and his anger at these alleged "deep
state" bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I've spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump "may be a
threat," Greenwald responds: "but so is this covert coup" within the White House, which represents "an unelected cabal that covertly
imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government and
NSA's illegal spying in the "War on Terror." But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump "may be a threat"
to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration
as a major threat to democracy is strange. It's akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house is
burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that's unique to Greenwald, as I've engaged with numerous individuals on
the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the "deep state's" assault on civilian political rule.
I don't see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president. If
we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal "problem" of intra-administrative
discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
I'm not clear if, with your extensive quotations, you are endorsing the Counterpunch article. To me, that article is busy attacking
Greenwald for defending the Constitution and the political process. The author perverts defending the law into defending Trump.
Even murderers are supposed to be given a fair trial. The author, DiMaggio, does not seem to be in favor of that.
This article fits a pattern at Counterpunch. They print some leftwing stuff, but when the chips are down, they will publish
an article that supports the Deep State. I judge Counterpunch on an article by article basis. This article gets an F.
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump
from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times,
none of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused
his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump's presidency, and his anger at these alleged "deep
state" bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I've spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump "may be
a threat," Greenwald responds: "but so is this covert coup" within the White House, which represents "an unelected cabal that
covertly imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government
and NSA's illegal spying in the "War on Terror." But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump "may be a
threat" to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration
as a major threat to democracy is strange. It's akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house
is burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that's unique to Greenwald, as I've engaged with numerous individuals
on the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the "deep state's" assault on civilian political
rule. I don't see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president.
If we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal "problem" of intra-administrative
discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing democracy.
Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
@dkmich
target of a coup, doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan
and not just Hers plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically
termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live with,
or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think we all know
our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing
democracy. Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because
of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment, but
many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes it look
like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that
the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement and
isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary
armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against
them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure
too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for it?
Hmmm. Fishy that.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits
during the post-crash period."
The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans,
but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless
speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.
Thanks to the Obama administration's decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump administration's
massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America's five largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo,
and Goldman Sachs -- have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade, Public Citizen found in
its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits," said Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen, "the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits."
What a surprise,
According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped
craft the Democratic Congress' regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes of
benefiting from big banks' booming profits.
Not
#5 target of a coup,
doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers
plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live
with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think
we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
@snoopydawg
You always put it so much better and in better detail than I do. I've felt from the beginning with Trump the more repulsive and
stupid the policy, they better for our owners. They're fine with all that, but they will not tolerate dissent on overall American
dominance of the entire world and Trump, for whatever greedy reasons, is bucking them there. And I do not believe Her could have
gotten away with his more egregious things and our owners were certainly aware of that. The mask is off, let the final gutting
commence openly.
And the more they "fight" Trump the more "credible" Trump looks. I find that personally terrifying.
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because
of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment,
but many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes
it look like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that
the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement
and isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary
armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against
them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure
too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for
it? Hmmm. Fishy that.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits
during the post-crash period."
The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans,
but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless
speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.
Thanks to the Obama administration's decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump
administration's massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America's five largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America,
Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs -- have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade,
Public Citizen found in its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits," said Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen, "the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits."
What a surprise,
According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped
craft the Democratic Congress' regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes
of benefiting from big banks' booming profits.
By that I'm saying that both major legacy Parties always managed to nominate Party candidates who were acceptable to the Deep
State and the One Percent--until DT came along, and won the Republican nomination in 2016.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
#5 target of a coup,
doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers
plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live
with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think
we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it is
fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and keep
them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to Trump's
initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any more
complicated than that.
the biggest Dem Congressional voting block will be a military/intel/national security/State Dept cabal--or, a 'shadow Deep
State.' Probably, one reason that the DCCC and Dem Leadership recruited scores of these candidates to run in open seats.
On November 7, it will be a piece of cake to take out (figuratively) DT.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it
is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and
keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to
Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any
more complicated than that.
...on domestic issues, but don't expect improvements.
As for foreign policy, the Dems will vote with the Deep State every time.
The trajectories of the past 50 years are not going to change.
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it
is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and
keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to
Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any
more complicated than that.
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author to
take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source of the
Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the author
is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort
(by a cabal of officials ).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal
expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose
name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have a great
deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
have attributed this excellent essay to Pluto. My apologies!
(Nancy's comments were great, too. )
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author
to take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source
of the Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the
author is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort
(by a cabal of officials ).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal
expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose
name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have
a great deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama administration
was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers
and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has
received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments
and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments.
It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies latitude to pursue and
penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures
of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch
for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to
report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012, Defense
Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama
administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer
tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It
has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal
departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and
Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies
latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized
disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors
must watch for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for
failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012,
Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube)
yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote.
She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara Huckabee
was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference.
I mean, come on: Trump University? The President
was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is real and it's Trump
and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who voted
for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than the people
who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information
is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube)
yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote.
She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara
Huckabee was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference. I mean, come on: Trump University?
The President was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is
real and it's Trump and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
@arendt
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree
with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who
voted for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than
the people who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor
of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information
is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks who
TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us Mike
Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to get
rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
#9.1
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree
with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
@arendt@arendt
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the hell
are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks
who TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us
Mike Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to
get rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
You have to wait for 2020 when you will be able to vote for Biden if you can stop throwing up on your way to the polls.
#9.1.1.1#9.1.1.1
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the
hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every
American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump,
not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy.
In other words, you have difficulty acknowledging that PCR has been on record for months claiming there is a conspiracy. Are
you really that unwilling to acknowledge he thinks there is a conspiracy? What is your objection to acknowledging the man's stated
position?
In this second response, you jump on the word "impeachment" as if that is an unjustifiable stretch from the facts on the table.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth.
To many of us, including the OP writer, this op-ed is just the latest stirring of the pot in an ongoing campaign to get rid
of/impeach/remove Trump well before 2020. Such provocations have been occurring since before Trump was sworn in. To claim, as
you do, that this op-ed was done only to influence this election is a classic "broken clock is right twice a day" argument. Its
true it might influence the election, but its purpose is to further the coup attempt that is underway.
That you react so strongly ("I never said") to the word impeachment is part of a pattern. You want to wall off the issue of
the conspiracy (which you still only acknowledge with a "seems to imply") from the issue of Trump's behavior and only focus on
the latter. This is exactly the pattern of the corporate Dems.
I refuse to adhere to your compartmentalization. The op-ed and impeachment ARE related.
#9.1.1.1#9.1.1.1
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the
hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every
American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump,
not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
"It's Time for the Press to Stop Complaining -- And to Start Fighting Back"
Chuck Todd SEP 3, 2018 in "The Atlantic"
Two days later the NYT article hit. That was my reaction to the piece, Chuck called for this.
What deep state conspiracy? There's your proof right there! So, Trump was right?
"It's a witch hunt!" Trumps seemingly paranoid ejaculations, do not seem so paranoid with every passing day of nothing but backfires.
"Fake News!" Strzok-Page's "media leak strategy" Not so crazy after all?
Trump is so unpredictable. The tweeting maniac is impossible to handle. Is that such a bad thing?
I think we can afford it, there is a benefit.
Some people just wanted Washington shook up, they are getting what they wanted.
I don't know that there's a better way to bring actual change.
The means are not conventional that's for sure, what are the results we want?
If he achieves them, will he be credited?
If all his fantastic assertions keep coming true, he'll be around for some time.
No? Why not, because of anonymous articles like this? Another deep state back fire; keep digging.
"... The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today. ..."
And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley,
always blissfully ignorant but never quiet,
commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last
Friday, that Russia and Syria "want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes" before launching
into a tirade about Iran, saying
that "President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is
falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in
supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are
doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen -- these
are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and
these are all things that the international community needs to talk about."
And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in
April that "it's time" to bring American troops home from Syria -- once the jihadists of
Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there
has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the
White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last
week of the New York Timesanonymous
op-ed describing a "resistance" movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately
undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly
policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the
release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on
Amazon today.
The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is
deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and
suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in
"[calling out] countries like Russia for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly" in
spite of the president's desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and
Trump, describing how " the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as
punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about
senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he
expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for
its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be
taken to hold Moscow accountable."
If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask "Whose policy? An
elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as
neoconservatives?" Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the
same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right
the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by
politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the
government.
As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran
and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an
enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in
Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with
Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would
produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth
considering.
By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well
underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad,
who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of
the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers
that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory
from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.
Last week, the Trump White House approved the
new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like
a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country's
northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to
leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime
change.
Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with
newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that
". . . they're not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal
dictator." Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine
days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in
line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the
visit.
Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200
times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in
neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing
arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria .
As Doug French
noted last July , this result would surprise no one familiar with F.A. Hayek's Road to
Serfdom. As Hayek wrote in his chapter dedicated to the question "Why the Worst Rise to the
Top:"
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do
immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics
is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the
supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be
prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole', because that is to him the only
criterion of what ought to be done.
Donald Trump is a man that is guilty of a great many sins, but at the end of the day he's no
worse than your average – overpaid
– Federal senior staffer. The elites that make up the professional political class and
their cheerleaders in the mainstream media have no moral high ground here. Their aim is not to
restore "civility" or "decency" to American politics, after all their desire to expand the
reach of government power is precisely what undermines such values .
No, their goal is simply to reverse an election they didn't expect to lose. It's quite possible
they may end up succeeding.
Hopefully the takeaway for those who relished the idea of "draining the swamp" is the
realization that this can't be accomplished by simply changing the name of the person who
occupies the top office. The Federal government can't be fixed; it must have its powers taken
away.
Political decentralization is the only way to truly make America great again.
"... Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that they were the anonymous writer. ..."
Every day last week brought new demonstrations of an unprecedented crisis within the Trump
White House and US state apparatus. The Trump administration is torn by internal divisions,
amidst palace coup conspiracies involving the corporate media and sections of the
military-intelligence apparatus, as well as the Democratic Party.
On Tuesday, initial reports on the new book by Bob Woodward portrayed top Trump aides
deriding his intelligence and even sanity, working behind the scenes to derail his most
inflammatory orders -- such as a demand for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. Trump administration officials were carrying out what Woodward characterized as "an
administrative coup d'état," i.e., disobeying his wishes and carrying out their own.
The next day, the New York Times made public an op-ed, written for its Thursday
print edition, in which an unnamed "senior administration official" presented himself as the
spokesman for a cabal of top officials working to keep Trump in check. "We are the real
resistance," the official claimed, making clear his support for the main elements of the
administration's right-wing program.
On Friday, Barack Obama weighed in with a campaign-style speech -- unusual for an
ex-president in the first election after leaving office -- in which he described the Trump
administration as "radical" and "not normal." He called on Republicans, conservatives and
Christian fundamentalists to vote for Democratic candidates in November, to "restore sanity" in
Washington and allow a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to provide an
institutional check on Trump.
President Trump responded in kind. On Monday, he attacked his own attorney-general, Jeff
Sessions, for not quashing Justice Department investigations into two Republican congressmen
indicted on criminal charges of stock market swindling and theft. On Tuesday he denounced the
Woodward book as a fabrication, and on Wednesday he called the New York Times op-ed an
act of treason. On Thursday, he told a campaign rally in Montana that they had to vote
Republican in November to prevent his impeachment. On Friday, he tweeted his demand that
Sessions have the Justice Department investigate the New York Times op-ed and identify
the anonymous writer.
Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump
Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he
could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that
they were the anonymous writer.
There is simply no precedent in modern American history for such a level of political
conflict and dysfunction within the leading institutions of the capitalist state. How is this
to be explained? What direction will the crisis take?
It is entirely superficial to root such an explanation in the personality of Donald Trump.
Even Obama in his Illinois speech admitted that Trump is not the cause, but merely the symptom,
of more profound processes. But Obama, of course, covered up his own role, depicting his
presidency as eight years of heroic efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial
crash. At the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial oligarchy were
fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while working people were poorer than before, a
widening social chasm that made possible the election of the billionaire con man and demagogue
in November 2016.
This social crisis underlies the political convulsions in Washington. There are, of course,
political differences within the two factions fighting it out within the ruling elite. They are
deeply divided over foreign policy, particularly over how to deal with the failure of US
intervention in Syria and the Middle East more broadly, and over whether to target Russia or
China first in the struggle to maintain the global dominance of American imperialism. The most
significant passage in Obama's speech was his criticism of the Republican Party for having
retreated from its Cold War, anti-Communist roots by tolerating Trump's supposed "softness"
toward Putin.
More fundamental, however, is the growing concern within all sections of the ruling elite
over the possibility of a renewed economic crisis under conditions of mounting social
opposition from below, following the initial stirrings of the American working class this year
-- the series of statewide teachers' strikes, the mounting resistance of industrial workers to
sellout contracts imposed by the unions, and the buildup of anger over super-exploitation by
giant employers like Amazon and Walmart.
Facing an impending eruption of the class struggle, there is little confidence in corporate
boardrooms, on Wall Street, or at the Pentagon and CIA that the current chief executive of the
American government can meet the test of great events.
One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report
on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another "great
liquidity crisis" was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by
Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, "in light of the potential impact of central bank
actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."
The report went on to note that political explosions on the scale of 1968 could develop,
facilitated by the role of the internet as a means of dissemination for radical political views
and a means of political self-organization. "The next crisis is also likely to result in social
tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968," the bank report warned. "Similar to
1968, the internet today (social media, leaked documents, etc.) provides millennials with
unrestricted access to information In addition to information, the internet provides a platform
for various social groups to become more self-aware, polarized, and organized."
The ruling class response to this danger is to prepare domestic repression on a massive
scale. In that respect, there is no difference between Trump and his opponents, except the
ferocious disagreement over who should be in control of the forces of repression that will be
unleashed against the American working class. Trump, of course, is an authoritarian through and
through, organizing a fascistic attack on immigrant workers and developing tools that will be
used against the entire working class.
However, his opponents, utilizing of the methods of the palace coup -- intrigues, leaks,
media smears, special prosecutors and other provocations -- are no more wedded to democratic
forms than Trump. The essence of the drive to censor the internet, spearheaded by the
Democratic Party, is revealed by the JP Morgan report: it is the platform for "social groups,"
above all, the working class, "to become more self-aware."
As one of Trump's leading media critics, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum,
a frothing anti-communist, wrote Sunday, "Maybe we have also underestimated the degree to which
our Constitution, designed in the 18th century, has proved insufficient to the demands of the
21st."
Trump's political opponents seek to use the Democratic Party campaign in the November
elections both to further the preparations for repression and to disguise them from working
people. The disguise is provided by a handful of self-styled leftwing and even "socialist"
candidates for the House of Representatives, many aligned with Bernie Sanders, like Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley.
The substance is provided by the much larger number of Democratic candidates drawn directly
from the military-intelligence apparatus, nearly three dozen in all, who will hold the balance
of power if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. The policy the Democrats
will pursue if they win the election has already been demonstrated by the anti-Russia campaign
and the accompanying demands for internet censorship.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, it will not resolve the crisis in Washington nor
alter the basic trajectory of politics, which is bringing the working class into explosive
conflict with the ruling class, the entire state apparatus, and the capitalist system.
Responding to an anonymous Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing an active resistance within
the Trump White House, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told
Reuters that President Trump is facing a "coup" the likes of which haven't been seen since
the American Civil War.
... ... ...
" This is a crisis . The country has only ever had such a crisis in the
summer of 1862 when General McClellan and the senior generals, all Democrats in the Union Army,
deemed that Abraham Lincoln was not fit and not competent to be commander in chief ," said
Bannon - whose departure from the White House was in large part over a fallout with Trump's
"establishment" advisers. Bannon said at the time that the "Republican establishment" sought to
nullify the results of the 2016 election and effectively neuter Trump.
"There is a cabal of Republic establishment figures who believe Donald Trump is not fit to
be president of the United States. This is a crisis," Bannon said in Rome.
Anonymous IX ,
The naivete of so many astounds me. Do you really think that Trump cannot get the name of
the person who wrote the op-ed? In the old days, you sent your operatives to break into the
Watergate. With today's computers and backdoors everywhere into any computer system [open
your reading horizons... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/437895-privacy-five-eyes-encryption/
], anyone can obtain this information if they so desire. Why is Trump being portrayed as a
poor "rich guy" who only wants the best for the country while valiantly fighting a nefarious
coup...whose members, by the way, are so clever and clandestine that they write an op-ed in
the friggin' New York Times! Sorry...don't have much time to continue discussing op-eds in
the NYT, gotta go re-insert ourselves into an independent sovereign nation, called Syria,
where our 1%-ers have deemed we need to go!
I like Trump's bravado and I like his partner, Melania. Designers should definitely bring
back slits in skirts! Scroll down. Here's a lady with class and style. She doesn't have to
show you her entire bosom for you to get the idea that she's hot! https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/09/03/melania-trump-labor-day-looks/
thebigunit ,
Silicon Valley comes full circle:
Apple's famous "1984" ad.
How ironic.
The guy on the TV screen is Tim Cook. He's saying "WE MUST SUPPRESS ALEX JONES!"
The anonymous leaker might not exist. Maybe the oped was written by someone at the new
york times. The reason for lying such might be to make Trump start hunting for his own
subordinates, that could turn some of his subordinates against him who then become an actual
leaker. I think this is their plan.
Moe Howard ,
Of course it is a coup in progress. So obvious it is beyond a question.
The fake op-ed was just the latest shot.
Seems to me that we need to break up and destroy these MSM and interweb monopolies.
No more dual national control over media outlets.
DEDA CVETKO ,
Yes, Steve Bannon. This is a coup. And it is a bad, bad, bad nazi-style,
beer-putsch kind of coup, the night of long knives and all.
But this is the coup you and your party (as well as your technical adversaries, but
friends in real life - the "democrats" - have been preparing for decades . This is the
coup you have been paving the way for with bombbombbomb Iran, with "export of
democracy" to Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Russia (and pretty much
everywhere else); with weaponization of dollar and global finance and militarization of media
and the police, with colored and rosey and khaki revolutions, with vulture hedge funds as the
primary instrument of the foreign policy and with 1% distribution of the 99% of national
wealth.
Yes. Steve Bannon. These are all proud accomplishments of the Republican and
Democratic party.
This is the coup your party (as well as the other one) has been funding for almost
three decades by voting for $1 trillion-per-year war budgets and never-ending wars across the
globe and by vigorously bankrolling the nazi merchants of death a/k/a/
military-industrial-financial-academic-media complex. And now you are shocked to learn that
nazis have fondness for putcshes? No kiddin', Sherlock!
This is the coup your party ideologically, theologically and morally justified in
terms of divine national exceptionalism, messianic narcissism, arrogant group-think and
never-ending pursuit of national might-makes-right and peace-through-strength.
Yes, Steve Bannon, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was right when he said that the chickens are
coming home to roost, er...roast. But this time, they are not coming home as McDonalds'
Chikken McNuggets or Kentucky Fried Chicken Shit. This time they are returning as chicken
guts'n'bones for the gigantic globalist chicken soup called New World Order.
You and your party should be rejoicing, not bemoaning. For, after all, this is your
proudest achievement and your finest hour.
God is The Son ,
Bannon is a retard, Trump is a retard, both Zionists. The only hope is Mattias to a Order
Coup De Ta. Military General needs to recognize that how Israel, Jews, Rothschilds have taken
over Banking Politics and Media in US and have hijacked US and are looting it. He also needs
to realize that they run the Left and the Right of Politics's. Arrest Trump, Alex Jones,
Zionists, ABC, FOX, Re-Investigate 9/11 findings will probably come to that the CIA and
Zionists did it, and that JFK killing was also CIA and Zionists. The CIA gets destroyed into
Thousand pieces and Israeli influence is removed entirely from all parts of American Society.
Federal Reserve, gets taken and turned into Public Central Bank of America under eye of US
Military. Rothschilds then told to leave or Arrested.
Peter41 ,
Well, correct up to a point. The established world order elites "saved" the system in
2007-08, by propping up the moribund banks (Citibank, JP Morgan, and others) by massive
injections of liquidity. Rather than removing this liquidity after the debacle, the Fed kept
the accelerator to the floor with continued "quantitative easing." Now presiding over a
$4Trillion balance sheet, the Fed is in the famous "liquidity trap" which Lord Keynes avoided
describing a solution for, by opining, "in the long run we are all dead."
Well, the elites are now in the position of watching the whole shitteree come unglued as
the Fed's policies framed by the elites will soon come unwound. Then, the elites will be
exposed as powerless.
Griffin ,
The old world order was not so organised, and the main ideology the ruling elites had in
common was transfer of wealth and wealth control,.
Using ideas like privatisation to get control of strategic assets like natural resources,
energy etc.
Using scams like pump and dump to suck wealth out of economies and then investing outside
the economy or planting it in a tax haven.
In Iceland there was roughly a 5 year interval between crashes. I called it the bubble
crash machine.
The msm and bank analysts were a important tool for politicians to keep this scam running,
but its dead now.
The new world order was supposed to be far more advanced and more organised, a tool to
eliminate all kinds of problems for large corporations, like the sovereign rights of states
for instance.
This was supposed to be a fusion between the superstate in Europe, where Merkel was at the
helm, and the liberal globalist friendly USA where Hillary was supposed to lead.
If this would have materialised it would have enabled multinational corporations to sue
nation states for imposing inconvenient laws that could suppress hopes of future profits for
instance, giving the corporations a indirect control over state politics, overriding
democracy and constitutions.
Abraxas ,
Coup, my ass. These guys turn everything upside-down. What a bunch of hyaenas.
Just look, these are the people that will drag us all down to the depths of hell with
them, telling us how nice and prosperous ride we'll have getting there. Stop this train, I
want to get off!
shortonoil ,
Having worked around DC I can tell you that the place collects nutcases, screwballs, and
sociopaths like fresh dog fresh shit collects flies. The Deep State is not the problem, the
problem is the DC State! DC is the epicenter of power hungry, greedy, self centered, self
serving, backstabbing, backbiting lunatics, and every one of them is looking for a gimmick to
advance their own personal agenda. The welfare of the nation is number 101 on their list of
100. Too much money, in too small a place with too many people trying to climb the same
ladder at the same time leads to anarchy. Give the power to collect money, and regulate back
to the States where it belongs, and let DC sink back into the swamp it was built on. The
Federal Government is out of control. The States have the Constitutional power, and
responsibility to regulate, and control the Federal government, and they had better start
using it before this dog and pony show breaks down into a lynching party.
Herdee ,
U.S. under Trump interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. The CIA goes around the
world overthrowing governments. American hypocrisy is so phony, especially their Washington
NeoCon/NeoNazi politicians:
These uniparty hacks are the same who claim Trump has disemboweled the Obama agenda, which
he has. Some nutcase... doing what he ran on. The only things he can't get done are because
of the career uniparty hacks.The op-ed was nothing more then carryover from the McCain
funeral. It's all transparent and meaningless, but a useful tool for Trump now.
DingleBarryObummer ,
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems
evil, asocial, a relic of the past. They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in
ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people, for while they
express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They
utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These
types, for example, will often display their weakness and lack of power as a kind of moral
virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very
effective strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power" -Robert Greene '48 Laws of
Power'
chumbawamba ,
What results though? So far, the results are in and the swamp is still pretty full.
As Dinglebutt pondered: deception, but for what purpose? Have you considered that you
might be being lulled into a safe landing right into the heart of totalitarianism?
Don't think for one moment Trump isn't capable of selling you out for his own
interests.
-chumblez.
Dilluminati ,
correction demonic coup (re-posted) but the Pizza gate it seems to be real, all the fake
news for generatons and the one story the globalists couldn't get to uncovering ~~~ YOU MUST
DECIDE!!
Sweden tonight.. Europe tomorrow. The left lives in fantasy land. Where Kapernick is some
NFL hero and the guy sucked at QB, I mean looking at the record, he sucked, he didn't win
anything. He ran like Mike Vick and that is about that.. and like Mike he suddenly realized
that EVERYBODY runs fast in the NFL unlike college. Then there is IMMIGRATION notice how the
globalists love three things above all others: profits for the 1%, paying no taxes, and they
love them some open borders and immigrant cheap labor. Take for example the imaginary op-ed
fake news from the NYT, or the CNN fake news story with leftist Lanny Davis, or lets drag
that whore Stormy out on stage for another trailer park runway dollar bill, or how about the
hearings on SCOTUS and Spartacus? Pocahontas? Abolishing Ice to fight crime, getting rid of
the 2nd amendment to make us safer, Or more gun legislation in Chicago or Baltimore doubling
down on stupid.. And now the ghouls who run the Democratic party have to go and try and sell
the Obama myth, talk about fantasy.. what the fuck was Obamacare? Where was the $ saved and
could people keep their doctor if they wanted? Each and every idea the Democrats and left
have come up with is proof that what the left doesn't fuck up it shits upon instead, and
now.. after being globally discredited the GLOBALISTS cocksuckers are done. Name a single
promise that the Globalists kept to any but the 1% the cocksuckers!
But turn on any globalist media, the NFL, ESPN, CNN, and of the Globalist monopoly news or
media outlets, the same lies are told. These Globalist cocksuckers cannot stop telling these
lies so instead they need to be removed by ballot, laws, and if need be FORCE!
The rudeness and desperation of the 1% is astonishing, but their boldness is like that of
the Pedophile Catholic Church! They get up on stage and do their empty virtue signalling and
then rape their communities cynically and with methodical efficiency, yes they are the 1% and
they do not care, yes they are the 1% and there is now no laws to confront them. There is
only the ballot. They intend to run to New Zealand as they know their days are numbered, they
skip the hearings like Google when called to account by Congress, and still you turn on the
media and see:
I'm sure Madeline has brokered some deal to service some 1% benefactor somewhere. But
again the rudeness, they come into your home under the guise of sports, under the guise of a
legitimate news source, and then they spread their LIES and distortions.
Watch Brexit and Google pissing in the face of Congress.. they do not respect the ballot
though they clamor about democracy, they but care about the 1% like the Pedophile Catholic
Church and do not care about your laws, they want to abolish Ice, they want to disarm you so
that they can more efficiently abuse you. That is your globalists not some loser on a Nike
ad, who has less of a career than say Tim Tebow (who could run) but wasn't the apologist and
hate America first Cunt stooge of the globalists. Watch Brexit and Google as they piss in the
face of democracy and remember.
This brief comment became the biggest headline news to come out of the third debate, as
many saw it as Mr Trump threatening to shatter a 240-year-old electoral tradition, one of the
cornerstones of US democracy: the losing candidate must always concede defeat, regardless of
the result.
Presidential rival Hillary Clinton called his stance "horrifying", saying it "was not
the way our democracy works".
Barack Obama labelled Trump's comments as "dangerous", and damaging to
democracy.
You see how that works? The left is like the Pedophile Catholic Church all worked up about
the plastic in the ocean, one set of laws and democracy for you, and another for them..
The lies, the globalist lies.. vote for your freedom.. What does the NFL and the Pedophile
Catholic Church have in common? NEITHER PAYS TAXES! Them globalists them silly globalists:
love three things above all others: profits for the 1%, paying no taxes, and they love them
some open borders and immigrant cheap labor.
The real PIZZA GATE my friends is the Globalists. The 1% with their laws, unaccountable to
ours which they twist against us.
I'm watching Bob Woodward being pimped by the Globalists media this morning, and I have to
think that in this guy's lifetime the largest scandal in the Church, the global abuse and
coverup, never warranted an op-ed. Need I say more? When you look at the fabled globalist Bob
Woodward, remember that he missed the abuse, the cover-up, the complete and orchestrated
abuse of power globally, he missed that story!
It took the state of Pennsylvania and a Grand Jury to tell that story that the globalist
and Bob Woodward would not, instead he peddled rumors, similar to Stormy trotted out for a
dollar bill on the trailer park runway.
notfeelinthebern ,
Been nothing but a coup since before day one even.
iinthesky ,
Started right after the Trump stepped off the escalator
Jim in MN ,
If the globalist elite neolibcon blackmail files ever see the light of day a lot of folks
are going to swing from nooses...where have I heard that phrase before....
This is still our last peaceful chance for change.
iinthesky ,
I think most historically competent folks quickly come to the conclusion that ''Kompramat"
as the Russians call it is without a doubt how the government governs itself.. hence an
'outsider' is rarely ever seen and never allowed to govern
Regarding that mysterious New York Times op-ed: I don't claim to know the truth of the
matter, but I'm mildly surprised that so few people are thinking out of the box-- or should I
say "outside the frame"?-- in which this curious op-ed was presented.
These days, I shouldn't be surprised that any old sensational "bombshell" is taken at face
value, especially by extreme anti-Trumpers.
The largely unexamined assumption that the mysterious op-ed is legitimate has triggered a
rush of whodunit fantasising; it's reminiscent of a pack of racing dogs chasing after the
mechanical bunny used on the racetrack to give the critters a reason to run. (Or the endless,
churning amateur espionage screenplay-writers' discussions of the Skripal diversion.)
I don't want to get pulped in the stampede, so I've held off expressing the obvious
thought that this agitprop gem could've easily been fabricated right in the NYT newsroom.
Why not? Never mind the conventional pious blather asserting that the prestigious
Newspaper of Record would never stoop to such chicanery.
Actually, I realize that this is a little too cut-and-dried; it's probable that the
NYT poobahs would be more inclined to "let it happen" rather than "make it happen"-- they
need a measure of deniability.
OTOH, the NYT is a major Big Lie fulfillment center. It essentially demands that the
public trust its explanation of the circumstances under which the op-ed was published; once
the "bombshell" is detonated, and the whodunit controversy is off and running, only rigorous
skeptics (ahem) would even think to question whether the NYT itself launched this IED of
self-sealing infoganda.
This possibility is too mind-blowing for Normals, of course. But why assume that the NYT's
carefully-staged and veiled assertions about the op-ed's origins are credible? It certainly
pushes all of the right "Resistance" buttons; whether it's perceived as a righteous
"whistleblower" attempting to Save Us from the ongoing horror of a Trump presidency, or a
treacherous stab in the back from some insider, it doesn't reflect well on Trump.
If one accepts these sources as credible and reliable, one must perforce conclude that
Trump is either seriously deranged, or is so hamstrung by his own megalomania and narcissism
that he's intolerably incompetent and out of control. He is simply too mad, or bad, or both,
to be allowed to remain on the Oval Office Throne.
I just saw a column by a progressive-liberal columnist, Will Bunch, at philly.com with the
headline " President Trump is not well. Congress must curb his power to start a nuclear
war. ". It almost sounds sympathetic, but the message is that both the mysterious op-ed
and Woodward's book conclusively "prove" that Trump is either ethically or mentally unfit to
hold office, or both.
Hmmm... these days, no matter where one looks, it's all about the "bombshells"!
Pepe Escobar has a wonderful new article today in which he discusses the Resistance
warrior in the NYT op-ed, as well as the Resistance hit piece from Bob Woodward, and reprises
Nixon and Kissinger from the old days of the "golden age of journalism", as Seymour Hersch
calls it in his latest memoir, Reporter , and as Escobar details.
The spookiness of the age we live in today couldn't be more resonant with the spookiness
exposed back in the golden age. It's all one piece. The only questions are, which is the side
to be on? And how are we supposed to leak these secrets anyhow? It's a gripping thriller of
an article from Pepe:
I said something similar to your quote from the link a couple of days ago. Its part of the
show
Frankly the whole Trump show is psyops theater. While the show is going on in public, in
the the wrecking crew in the shadows is working to dismantle every aspect of government that
works for the benefit of the population, whats left of it anyways.
I remember the Watergate hearings. They dared to interrupt soap operas which allowed me to
grab the TV from my mother some summer afternoons and I found it more entertaining than the
50's shows in UHF stations. Pure entertainment. Maybe we see something similar soon to liven
up the show
Of course this time they might give us a civil war to have an excuse to declare martial
law.
Cant really predict these things though . Stay tuned.
Pft @57: Frankly the whole Trump show is psyops theater.
Yup.
Pepe reinforces the narrative that Trump is a nationalist who peace initiatives are
thwarted by the nasty deep state. But Trump proved his love for the establishment in the
years before he ran for President and no real populist can be elected in USA.
It should be noted that the NYT oped cruise missile happened to be exactly timed with the
big splash of the Bob Woodward 'book' that trumpets the same meme ie the Trump administration
is dysfunctional and in a state of mutiny
'There is credible evidence that the American Deep State of the military-intelligence
apparatus used the Watergate scandal as a way to get rid of Nixon whose febrile mental
state was becoming a concern to them. Woodward, who had a background in Navy intelligence
was suspiciously a prodigy journalist who rapidly rose to cover what became the scandal
that ended Nixon's presidency.'
I would disagree only about Nixon's 'febrile mental state' as the reason for the deep
state wanting him gone the real reason was in fact that Nixon moved against neoliberalism and
expelled Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School' from the white house he in fact turned
toward socialism on the economy
'Nixon's purge of Friedman from his administration was not merely symbolic. Facing a
serious economic downturn, Nixon utilized huge amounts of government spending, spending
$25.2 billion to stimulate the economy in 1972.
Nixon went as far to openly propose a plan to provide a universal basic income of $1,600
(the equivalent of $10,000 present day) to every American family of four.'
This was a step too far for the Rockefellers and the plutocracy that runs the United
States
as Caleb Maupin explained presciently back in May in his superb historical parallel
between the war on Trump and the Nixon offing
Now we see that the deep state 'journalist' Woodward is here attempting to reprise his
Watergate role in bringing down a sitting POTUS the claims in the Woodward book about an
'administrative coup' in the Trump white house, and this 'oped' are so obviously part of the
same ploy that it is way beyond coincidence
Now it is interesting to note that we have on record THREE very astute commentators saying
the same thing about the provenance of the 'anonymous' hit piece that it is a creation of the
NYT itself PCR was first out of the blocks, yesterday Mr Cunningham, one of the few honest
and capable writers on the REAL left and now Ms Johnstone
And here's where things get curioser yet even the neoliberal standard bearer, the New
Yorker magazine ran a scathing piece by none other than Putin [and Trump] hater Masha Gessen
condemning the 'media corruption' embodied in the NYT oped
'But having this state of affairs described in print further establishes that an
unelected body, or bodies, are overruling and actively undermining the elected leader
An anonymous person or persons cannot govern for the people, because the people do not
know who is governing.'
Clearly there is a civil war going on behind the scenes inside the executive branch of the
United States government what the results will be nobody can know but we must realize that
when even one link in the chain of command is broken, the whole thing falls apart
I predicted right after the Singapore Trump-Kim summit and the fierce media backlash that
resulted that the media and their deep state partners in crime would overplay their hand and
shoot themselves in the foot
They have now done exactly that we will see how the people react, but I suspect that even
those who might not otherwise support Trump will in fact rally round the embattled president
by firing this cannonade now the treasonous media have nailed their on coffin tightly
shut
For the "Full Spectrum Dominance " crows even neutered and bitten down Trump is unacceptable. They want him out.
Notable quotes:
"... I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . . ..."
"... They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern, his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four. ..."
"... This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative" (another common scam) to attacking Trump. ..."
This comes as no news. The NYT has been after part of the "get the president" for anything
and everything camp since the nomination.
I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually
support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the
same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that
relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that
criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four
military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . .
just does not have the weight to make much headway with me. It's like the supposedly
wonderful kobe beef from Japan I had today -- spoiled and sour.
The NYT reputation was tainted long before the current president took office. I think that
the compromise made by the president to adopt in full the intel report has serious
repercussions. The issue here is not whether the Russians engage in espionage or influence, i
take it for granted that they do. But thus far the evidence has been mighty thin that they
actually have done so and did so to any effect.
Something rather nasty has been seeping out of US polity and if Trump is anything he
represents that polity with all its veneer of integrity swept aside.
Not all of the members he chose for his staff are self seeking aggrandizers, making the US
safe for democracy is but a disguise. Some are honorable men and women who simply should not
have been selected because they openly rejected the current executive for political, policy
and personal reasons. I think that was a managerial mistake.
They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern,
his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four.
This article about who, wrote or said what is just a side show.
@Rational DEAR
JUDAISTS -- PLEASE STOP LYING AND SCAMMING, PLEASE. BECOME CIVILIZED PLEASE.
Thanks for the excellent article, Sir. Great points!
This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative"
(another common scam) to attacking Trump.
Anonymous sources -- fabricated conversations that cannot be verified, because the source
is non-existent. It is all fabricated.
... ... ... You're being Rational again: "please stop these childish scams. This is
juvenile." You're appealing to hardened criminals.
I commend you for moderation and compassion, but if these people were to be redeemed it
would have happened before the FED, the Great Depression (read Wayne Jett), the assassination
of JFK and RFK, Tonkin, 911, 2008 and God know what more.
The neocon crowd wants a revenge. Badly. "Full Spectrum Dominance" is a a religion for them. And they uses all dirty tricks
intelligence agencies are know for.
In a speech Friday at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, former President Barack Obama publicly joined the escalating
offensive against President Trump being mounted by sections of the ruling class and the state. The speech, directed at channeling
both popular and ruling class opposition to the Trump administration behind the Democrats in the fall midterm elections, marked Obama's
first direct attack on his successor.
Obama's speech came as the culmination of a series of extraordinary events over the past two weeks that have brought the acute
political crisis in the US to a new and explosive level of intensity.
First came the week-long spectacle of bipartisan hypocrisy and political reaction occasioned by the death of Republican Senator
John McCain, one of the most ferocious war-mongers in the US political establishment. Democrats sought to outdo the Republicans in
eulogizing McCain as an "American hero" and model statesman. Within two days of McCain's burial, the media was ablaze with revelations
from the forthcoming book on the Trump White House by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward. Woodward, citing anonymous interviews
with high-ranking Trump officials, paints a picture of turmoil and dysfunction in which figures such as Defense Secretary James Mattis
and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly call Trump an idiot. Woodward recounts incidents of Trump administration officials countermanding
orders from the president, a situation Woodward characterizes as an "administrative coup d'état."
This was followed by the New York Times ' publication of an op-ed piece by an anonymous "senior official" in the Trump
administration describing the activities of an internal "resistance" to Trump within the White House. The piece cited discussions
among Trump aides about seeking his removal on the grounds of mental incompetence, as stipulated in the 25th Amendment to the US
Constitution. It made clear that the "resistance," promoted by the Times and the Democrats, supports Trump's tax cuts for
the rich, removal of corporate regulations and increase in military spending. It attacks Trump for his "softness" toward Russia and
North Korea and his overall impulsiveness, unpredictability and recklessness.
Obama's speech was along similar lines. He presented an absurdly potted history of American progress on the basis of the "free
market," with, he acknowledged, some imperfections -- such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq (which killed millions of people). His
administration was supposedly part of this march of progress.
... ... ...
The reality, of course, is that Obama presided over the funneling of trillions of dollars to Wall Street to rescue the financial
oligarchy, carrying out the greatest redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top in history. This was paid for by wage cuts
and the destruction of decent-paying jobs, replaced by poverty-wage, part-time and temporary employment, the gutting of health benefits
for millions of workers under "Obamacare," pension cuts, the closure of thousands of public schools and layoff of tens of thousands
of teachers, and a general lowering of the living standards of the working class.
Trump's attacks on democratic rights were prepared by Obama's brutal policy of deportations, his continuation of indefinite detention
and the Guantanamo torture camp, his support for mass domestic spying and his program of drone assassinations, including of US citizens.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were continued and new wars were launched in Libya and Syria.
"... The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role. ..."
The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high
gear this week.
Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our
establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.
Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and
Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton,
John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals
and admirals to list.
Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his
legacy:
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and
petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It's
a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new
determination: From here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded
immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.
Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've heard
is the noise of democracy."
But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain
why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a
semblance of order.
Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book, attributing to
Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president's intelligence,
character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a "crazytown" led by a fifth-
or sixth-grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous "senior official" claiming to
be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his
(Trump's) agenda."
A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in
the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the
disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her
president.
The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.
While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and
"Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this
portends is not good.
For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime
our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is
afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president
by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist
press plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
ORDER IT NOW
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two
years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a
hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under
the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.
So, where are we headed?
If November's elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more
investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be
able to manage.
There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was
inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became
president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump
Foundation by New York State.
There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments
Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of
these investigations.
Then, if media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment
investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.
If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even
as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats' septuagenarian
caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.
2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before
a new generation says enough of all this?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Just for the record -- not that we're keeping one -- I strongly suspect that that NYT Op Ed
by an "insider" is almost entirely fraudulent. OK, there might be an assistant to the
assistant undersecretary in charge of cutting the grass at the White House who will be
willing to put her name at the bottom of this thing, thereby giving the Times an "out" in
terms of committing outright journalistic perjury.
But who's going to call these people on it? The Times themselves? CNN? The Washington
Post? The Huffington Post?
What consequences will they suffer? Will the rabid dog leftists who read the
aforementioned periodicals suddenly do an about-face and abandon their leftist religion
because of journalistic fraud?
Of course not.
They'll just move on to the next "scandal" (almost certainly based on anonymous sources or
triple hearsay).
I think Trump is his own worst enemy. It is his incompetence that is fueling all these calls
for impeachment. He should have fired Mueller long time ago. The screaming could not have
been any worse. I don't think he comprehends the seriousness of the current situation. He
doesn't realize that he is the president. He has fallen into the trap of anti-Russian
rhetoric while I know he does not believe any of it.
He should never have hired John Bolton or Pompeo. For God's sakes; he appointed all these
heads of Departments, CIA, FBI, DNI, etc. and none of them can control his own department. He
is letting others control his agenda and his foreign policy. If it weren't for Pence, I would
prefer impeachment at this time because he is making the US a laughing stalk of the world.
But Pence scares me even more.
Acts 3:25 "He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be
blessed.'"
By the way, God's covenant with Abraham included Ishmael, who was also his offspring. The
Jews have altered the bible to make the covenant with Isaac only, as they have done with the
sacrifice of the "only son."
So far the only 2 senior officials who have not come out to deny writing the op-ed are John
Kelly and Nikki Haley, both are highly suspect at this point. John Kelly gave all those
disparaging accounts of the president to Bob Woodward then tried to deny it. Nikki Haley's
been running her own dog and pony show at the UN for two years, clashing with Trump more than
once for wanting to take out Assad. She takes her orders directly from the Prime Minister of
Israel, Trump who?
This NYTimes hit piece shows clearly the existence of a Deep State that is actively
working to subvert and overthrow a democratically elected POTUS. The Deep State must be
defeated for America to survive, but the only way to defeat the Deep State is through a
functioning DOJ. Jeff Sessions must now be considered part of the Deep State, along with
Pence and all the people Pence brought into Trump's cabinet when he was in charged of setting
up the interim government, from John Kelly to Mattis, Haley, Bolton, Kirstjen Nielsen,
Christopher Wray, Mike Pompeo, and above all Rod Rosenstein -- all are neocon Deep State
stooges and big time swamp creatures.
U.S. President Donald Trump continued his
attacks Wednesday on an explosive book about his administration.
Trump said the book, written by U.S. veteran investigative journalist Bob
Woodward, "means nothing" and called it "a work of fiction" during a photo op with
visiting Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah at the White
House.
Woodward's book -- "Fear: Trump in the White House" -- is to be released next
week.
According to excerpts obtained by media outlets, Trump's aides describe him as a
"liar" and an "idiot" who is running a "crazytown."
"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up
stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the
fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost," Trump tweeted earlier in
the day.
He also tweeted out written statements of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly
and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, both of whom denied uttering quoted
criticisms of the president in the book.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Woodward said, "I stand by my
reporting."
The book was based on hundreds of hours of conversations with direct players,
according to the author.
Woodward has been a reporter at the The Washington Post since 1971 and remains
an associate editor there.
He is most famous for breaking the story of the Watergate scandal, which
promoted the resignation of Richard Nixon from the presidency in 1974.
First of all as Diana
Johnstone noted this can be attempt to saw discord in Trump administration and anonymous
author iether does not exist or is a former official fired by Trump. See The New York Times as Iago, by Diana
Johnstone . She suggested that it was written by NYT staff " The letter by Mister or Ms
Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the
NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a
masterpiece of treacherous deception." ... "The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the
facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to
undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea." The letter amounts to an endorsement
of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing
Republican as President.
She continues: " Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone
around him? Isn't that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and
which is fallback grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with
anything more serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?"
AS Daniel Larrison points out the dishonesty of anonymous author is evident: " They want
credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the
government to their own liking. ". And they so far succeeded in manipulating Trump foreign
policy to the extent that he does not differ from Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking. ..."
"... There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article. ..."
The
New York Timespublished
a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration
to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more
prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a
manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of
the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming
that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they
have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue
that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public
service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are
entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to
be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront
to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on
autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.
Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda,"
the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official
says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious
question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any
kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only
enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our
republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his
defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to
manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking.
There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but
the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the
administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly
conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about
that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory
article.
If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of
the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his
resignation.
"... No doctor that has examined him says he is insane. All that's presented are third-party anonymous accusations of incompetence shot through with gossip. A book written by a Hollywood trash reporter is otherwise held up as critical evidence of the inner workings of the president's mind. ..."
"... We might instead look at the actual decisions Trump has made, and those of his predecessors. One president used nuclear weapons to decimate two cities' worth of innocents , and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing Vietnam with blood. Ronald Reagan was famously caught on an open mic saying he was going to start bombing the Soviet Union in the next few minutes. Another president spread false information about WMDs to launch an invasion of Iraq and mocked North Korea's leader as a pygmy. Obama said he "will not hesitate to use our military might" against the North, knowing that meant Armageddon. Historical psychiatrists say half of our past presidents may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. If Trump is dangerous as president, he would seem to have company. ..."
"... In the minds of the "Trump is Insane" crowd what matters most is that never-used fourth subsection, the incapacitation clause. People claim because Trump is insane he is unable to carry out his duties, and so Mike Pence, et al, must step in and transfer power away from him. Trump would legally exist in the same status as Grandpa Simpson in the nursing home, and Pence would take over. Among other problems, this imagines that the 25th Amendment's legally specific term "unable" means the same thing as "unfit." An unconscious man is unable to drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit, but still able, to drive. The 25th Amendment only refers to the first case. ..."
The media chatterati seems to be of one mind: Donald Trump is mentally incompetent and may
have to be removed from office before he blows us all to hell.
The solution, to their minds, lies in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which creates
a mechanism outside of impeachment to remove an "incapacitated" president. Trump's mental
state, some believe, qualifies him. Is there a case?
Dr. Bandy Lee , one of the
editors of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump ,
says yes. Her evidence includes tweets that Trump sent threatening Kim Jong-un. She really
has no other ammunition: no doctor who says Trump is insane, including Lee, has examined him.
No doctor that has examined him says he is insane. All that's presented are third-party
anonymous
accusations of incompetence shot through with gossip. A book written by a Hollywood trash
reporter is otherwise held up as critical
evidence of the inner workings of the president's mind.
So is there a case without the tweets? Not really. Lee
adds that while Trump has not committed violent acts against himself or others, his "verbal
aggressiveness, history of boasting about sexual assault, history of inciting violence at his
rallies, and history of endorsing violence in his key public speeches are the best predictors
of future violence," and thus concludes he will destroy the world. Lee also weakly
points to Trump "being drawn to violent videos." Oh my.
We might instead look at the actual decisions Trump has made, and those of his predecessors.
One president used nuclear weapons to decimate two
cities' worth of innocents , and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of
American lives washing Vietnam with blood. Ronald Reagan was famously caught on an open mic
saying he was going to start bombing the Soviet Union in the next few minutes. Another
president spread false information about WMDs to launch an invasion of Iraq and mocked North
Korea's leader as a pygmy. Obama said he
"will not hesitate to use our military might" against the North, knowing that meant Armageddon.
Historical psychiatrists say
half of our past presidents may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. If Trump is
dangerous as president, he would seem to have company.
But how can we know? Trump will never voluntarily undergo a mental competency exam, though
courts can order people to submit. But even Lee, who met with congressional representatives to
press the case that Trump is insane, admits this is unlikely to happen. "Many lawyer groups
have actually volunteered to file for a court paper to ensure that the security staff will
cooperate with us," Lee
said . "But we have declined, since this will really look like a coup, and while we are
trying to prevent violence, we don't wish to incite it through, say, an insurrection."
Still, those arguing Trump is insane and must be removed from office will point to the 25th
Amendment as just what the doctor ordered.
The framers did not originally include rules for what happens if a president dies or becomes
incapacitated. It was just assumed the vice president would serve as "Acting President." The
25th Amendment, passed after the Kennedy
assassination , created the first set of protocols for this sort of situation.
The amendment has four short
subsections. If the presidency goes vacant (for example, after a fatal heart attack), the vice
president becomes president. If the vice presidency goes vacant, the president chooses a new
VP. If the president knows he'll be incapacitated (due to scheduled surgery, for example), he
can voluntarily and temporarily assign his duties to the vice president. If the president is
truly incapacitated (unconscious after an assassination attempt) and can't voluntarily assign
away his duties, the VP and cabinet can do it for him, with a two-thirds majority confirming
vote of the House and Senate.
In the minds of the "Trump is Insane" crowd what matters most is that never-used fourth
subsection, the incapacitation clause. People claim because Trump is insane he is unable to
carry out his duties, and so Mike Pence, et al, must step in and transfer power away from him.
Trump would legally exist in the same status as Grandpa Simpson in the nursing home,
and Pence would take over. Among other problems, this imagines that the 25th Amendment's
legally specific term "unable" means the same thing as "unfit." An unconscious man is unable to
drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit, but still able, to drive. The 25th Amendment only
refers to the first case.
The use of the 25th Amendment to dethrone Trump is the kind of thing non-experts with too
much Google time can convince themselves is true. But unlike much of the Constitution, where
understanding original intent requires the Supreme Court and a close reading of the Federalist
Papers, the 25th Amendment is modern legislation. We know the drafters' intent
was an administrative
procedure, not a political thunderbolt. The 25th Amendment premises that the president will
almost always invoke succession himself, either by dying in office or by anticipating that he
will be unable to discharge his duties, as in 2007 when George W. Bush went under anesthesia
for his annual colonoscopy and signed things over to his vice president for a few hours.
The reason the 25th Amendment is not intended to be used adversarially is the Constitution
already specifies impeachment as the way to force an unfit president out against his
will, his unfitness specifically a result of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The people who
wrote the 25th Amendment did not intend it to be an alternate method of impeachment or a
do-over for an election.
The Constitution at its core grants ultimate power to the people to decide, deliberately,
not in panic, every four years, who is president. Anything otherwise would mean the drafters of
the 25th Amendment wrote a backdoor into the Constitution that would allow a group of
government officials, many of whom in the Cabinet were elected by nobody, to overthrow an
elected president who they simply think has turned out to be bad at his job.
Accusations of mental illness are subjective, unprovable in this case, and alarmist --
perfect fodder to displace the grinding technicalities of Russiagate. Denouncing one's
political opponents as crazy was a tried-and-true Soviet and Maoist tactic, and a movie trope
where the youngsters try to get the patriarch shut away to grab his fortune. We fear the
mentally ill, and psychiatric name calling against Trump invokes that fear
. "The 25th Amendment would require, for mental incapacity, a major psychotic break,"
said one former Harvard Law School professor. "This is hope over reality. If we don't like
someone's politics we rail against him, we campaign against him, we don't use the psychiatric
system against him. That's just dangerous."
Trump's time in office is finite, but what happens around him will outlast his tenure. It is
dangerous to mess with the very fundamentals of our democracy, where the people choose the
president and then replace him with a cabal called into session by pop psychologists. This is
an attack on the process at its roots: you yokels voted for the wrong guy so somebody smarter
has to clean up.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter@WeMeantWell.
Judging by the fact that he's still the only president after the end of the Cold War who
hasn't yet dragged the country into any new costly and unnecessary war, it indeed must be
that either he's a genius or his predecessors are mentally challenged. Your choice.
" . . . and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing
Vietnam with blood."
Total US losses in the Vietnam War/conflict: 58,300
It is sad that plans were made to remove the Pres. even before he was elected. It has been
the use of a special prosecutor has certainly been a factor
in damaging our republics democracy.
I remember hearing a reporter comment upon Obama and Bush meeting on inauguration day that
the "Peaceful transition of power is what makes our Democracy great." Now 8 years later those
same people are saying we need to oust the Democratically elected candidate. The danger here
is not against the offices of our government but against the press itself. As the media
continues down this path they paint themselves as lunatics, hypocrites and partisans. I think
our institutions will survive this and much worse. But I don't think the media as we know it
will. Trust is at an all time low in most all of the media outlets. The question that needs
to be asked is will our Democracy survive the death of the press and what if anything will
replace what used to be called investigative and informative journalism?
There's a NeverTrump and Resistance checklist that's being worked through, and this was the
next gambit if Russiagate failed, which was the gambit if the Electoral College revolt didn't
work The next in line will be something along the arc of a politicized MeToo They're making a
list, and they're checking it twice
There's a NeverTrump and Resistance checklist that's predictably being worked through, and
this was the next gambit if Russiagate failed, which was the gambit if the Electoral College
revolt didn't work The next in line will be something along the arc of a politicized MeToo
They're making a list, and they're checking it twice
Reading this only serves as a reminder that the ones whom we really need to fear are the
masses of the great Unwashed Elite (Vox, CNN, etc.), not Trump.
Slightly off topic, but "the youngsters try to get the patriarch shut away to grab his
fortune" is, sadly, no movie trope; my family is living it right now. Trying to right this
outrageous wrong on behalf of the forcibly shut-away patriarch is costing us non-grabby
siblings tens of thousands of dollars in legal and court fees. Justice has a crippling price
in modern America and those who can't pay don't get much justice.
In East Germany, Stasi leader Markus Wolfe took things a step further with the "zersetzung"
tactic.
The idea was to *induce* a "personal crisis" through clandestine harassment, including at
the hands of acquaintances secretly recruited by the Stasi.
In other words, while the Frankfort School was content to merely *label* their opponents
mentally ill ("Authoritarian Personality", "Paranoid Style", etc.), Markus Wolfe was actively
trying to cause *real* mental illness by relentlessly gaslighting selected individual
dissidents until they cracked.
How many centuries will it take for the reputation of the mental health profession to
recover from their association with various repressive left-wing regimes and
pseudo-scientists such as the Freudians and the Frankfurt School?
HRC warned us of all the dumb white male deplorable's , as being a major threat. Wonder where
the pop psychologist have these Americans slotted, possibly not allowed to vote ?
What's insane is that a married FBI agent and an FBI lawyer hooked up and conspired to bring
down a President, yet both still work for the FBI! That's really insane.
It's just silliness re. Mr Trump. He's perfectly sane.
We had a former governor- whom I actually admire- but his behavior was authentically erratic.
If Pres. Trump ever acts even half this way, then we should take a serious look at his mental
health 🙂 :
" Long spent ninety minutes ranting and lashing out against his opponents. Spotting
Rainach in the crowd, Long launched into the salacious details of the murder of Rainach's
uncle, killed by a black man who had caught him in bed with the man's wife. In one of Long's
most famous remarks, he told the crowd, "After all this is over [Rainach will] probably go up
there to Summerfield, get up on his front porch, take off his shoes, wash his feet, look at
the moon, and get close to God." Pointing and shouting at Rainach, he continued, "And when
you do, you got to recognize that n**gers is human beings!" When he concluded his tirade,
Earl was rushed to the governor's mansion and locked in a bedroom where he grew violent. At
one point, he stood in the smashed bedroom window shouting, "Murder!"
Concerned about his mental health, Long's family had him institutionalized in Texas before
transferring him to the Louisiana State Hospital in Mandeville. With the assistance of his
subordinates, however, Long won release from the asylum, firing the director in the process,
and proceeded on an interstate buying spree trailed by national press agents. Many have
speculated on the cause of Long's apparent breakdown, with at least one biographer convinced
the politician suffered from bipolar disorder. Others speculate that Long's all-night
escapades in New Orleans, including dalliances with dancer Blaze Starr, coupled with the
regular ingestion of large amounts of alcohol and the powerful stimulants Dexedrine
undermined Long's perception of reality. Regardless of the cause, it was clear to many,
including the national press, that Long needed an extended vacation."
If one day Trump wakes up and decides it's a good day to launch nuclear missiles at some
country because their leader said disparaging remarks against him, then the 25th should be
invoked. But not before then.
One of the hallmarks of mental illness is that a person's personality or behavior change and
people close to them that love them are most alarmed by it and want them to get treated. None
of this holds in Trump's case. His behavior is the same as it's always been, which is what
people voted on. And the ones trying to use it are his enemies which don't care about
treatment, but simply as a machination to depose him.
The author has made several errors. He assumes that discussing the possibility of a
psychiatric disorder making Trump unfit means proving insanity. In reality, the most likely
disorder does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but does make a person incapable of
competently or faithfully performing the duties of office.
The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver
ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed
behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the
individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a
face-to-face interview may be virtually useless.
The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments
No one imagined that someone with this possible disorder would ever make it to the White
House, however, the 25th Amendment provides an avenue for him to temporarily be removed from
power while he can undergo proper evaluation by military psychiatrists and neurologists. This
is all mental health professionals are requesting. These individuals can do tremendous damage
when give power over others.
"The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments "
An Orwellian comment like the above just proves the point of the article, and then some.
As if there isn't anyone in the world who couldn't be shoehorned to fit such a diagnoses,
with a crafty narrative reconfiguring of their actions.
If there are indeed any witch doctors (excuse me, "psychiatrists") pathologizing people on
the basis of a laughable list like the above, then I consider them to be far more undeserving
of the power they have, and far more toxic to society, than Trump in any of the actions or
utterances that he has made.
Susan Dawkins, who claims my article has mistakes, didn't read it. Her amateur diagnosis that
Trump has "Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features" does not make him
UNABLE to be president, which is what the 25th Amendment is for.
She claims he is UNFIT. Fitness is judged primarily by the people, who elected him. If a
president somehow becomes unfit while in office it must be because of "high crimes and
misdemeanors." That's the only reason the Constitution provides for. And impeachment is the
only answer.
Sorry kiddies, the 25th is a not-over for an election Rachael Maddow doesn't like.
This is all mental health professionals are requesting."
"All"? That's rich.
Indeed, is that all that they're requesting? My goodness -- what a modest
request! -- a request merely to have complete veto power over America's entire citizenry, in
terms of who is allowed to be President; a request merely to be able to remove any President
who is not to their liking.
In short, a mere request to be able to legally perform a coup d'etat at will, to overturn
any election that does not yield their desired result.
How gratified we all should be that their request for power is such a small one. Imagine
if they asked for something just a bit more ambitious. "Omnipotence" comes to mind.
Trump is the one who messes with the very fundamentals of our democracy. Remember his voting
commission and the crap they wanted? Force states to provide all the 2016 voter information
to his CosaNostra buddies. And remember when they wanted all Americans to fill out a
registration form similar to the one used when purchasing a gun? They said they wanted to
make sure only those qualified were on the voter registration lists.
Trrump's as sane as any other 71 year old man-baby.
Obviously saner and infinitely more mature than a 70 year old woman-baby, who wrecked a
havoc all over the Middle East, was laughing like a bloodthirsty child when watching an old
man's violent death in the hands of a barbaric crowd as one of the results of that havoc and
then, out of a sheer infantile negligence, caused an American ambassadors similarly violent
death in the hands of likely the same crowd as another result of the same havoc.
***
Susan Dawkins,
So, you claim that something that something that doesn't meet the legal definition of
insanity is somehow a basis to invoke a legal mechanism that would require someone to be
legally defined as insane ? How pathetic. Do you know that this mere writing of yours
can be a sign of at least three mental disorders, assuming it was written in good faith and
not as an umpteenth attempt of a comically maladroit political hackery? Note that I have
certain knowledge in psychiatry and can highlight the signs of these disorders step by step,
not by hysterical shrilling "I'm an MD, you philistines", which can be a sign of yet another
mental disorder.
Though the most comical part of your hackery is that every point of your list meant to
"describe" Trump perfectly fits Hillary Clinton. You should try better. Seriously. You have
just shown that your knowledge of psychiatry is abysmal, no matter the degrees you
might have.
Ultimately to the leftists everybody is mentally ill because they don't understand the
necessities of history and they don't possess "secret" knowledge.
Susan Dawkins, that list of symptoms reminds me of most all of the people that run for
political office or spend a majority of their lives up on the hill. I immediately thought of
several people on both the left and the right. Let's see how HIllary does:
1&2: embellished/lied in saying she was personally shot at by a sniper in Bosnia?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html
. Might I add that she said this while other Americans were on battlefields half a world away
actually getting shot at.
3&4: Calling American Citizens deplorable 5&6&8: Voted for Iraq, pushed for
action in Libya.
Hmm, I guess there is a reason voters didn't pick her.
What matters in this narrative is not law, not ethics or sanity, not anything else but
power.
If those who want Trump removed will have the power to do so, they will do so. Whatever
law is invoked will merely be an excuse, a cover story, if you will.
"The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver ignores
the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed behavior,
history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the individual
shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a
face-to-face interview may be virtually useless."
So what happens when the third parties or the psychiatrist in question are pathological
liars? Would a face-to-face interview help in that case?
President Trump and those close to him have challenged the narrative of Bob
Woodward's new book, which portrays him as "a 5th-grader" ready to make rash decisions, such as
ordering the assassination of Assad.
"The Woodward book has already been refuted and
discredited by General (Secretary of Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John
Kelly," Trump tweeted on Tuesday afternoon, after excerpts from the book were published by
the Washington Post and other publications. The manuscript, which is scheduled for release next
week, contains many quotes that were "made up frauds," Trump said, calling the book's
narrative "a con on the public."
The Woodward book has already been refuted and discredited by General (Secretary of
Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John Kelly. Their quotes were made up
frauds, a con on the public. Likewise other stories and quotes. Woodward is a Dem operative?
Notice timing?
Rejecting the claims that senior aides have been plucking sensitive documents off his desk
to prevent him from making rash decisions, Trump noted in an exclusive interview with
the Daily Caller that the bulk of the stories in the book were just a compilation of "nasty
stuff" totally "made up" by the famed Watergate Washington Post reporter.
Trump was not the only one to slam Woodward's claims, which present the US leader as an
impulsive decision-maker, who is sometimes called an "idiot" and a "liar"
even by those closest to him:
Trump ordered Mattis to 'f**king kill' Assad
One of the excerpts from the book claims the president ordered Secretary of Defense Jim
Mattis to assassinate the Syrian leader following the 2017 Idlib chemical incident. "Let's
f**king kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them," Trump allegedly told
Mattis. "We're not going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured," the
defense secretary allegedly told one of his senior staffers after that.
Following the controversial claim, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley denied that Trump
ever planned to assassinate Assad. "I have not once ever heard the president talk about
assassinating Assad,"
she told reporters at UN headquarters.
"Mr. Woodward never discussed or verified the alleged quotes included in his book with
Secretary Mattis or anyone within the DOD," a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Rob Manning,
added.
Mattis compared Trump to '5th or 6th grader'
Woodward claims that Trump once asked Mattis why the US backs South Korea militarily and
financially, prompting the defense secretary to tell close associates afterward that Trump had
the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader. "Secretaries of defense don't always get to
choose the president they work for," Mattis allegedly said in another instance.
Mattis personally rejected the claim made in the book. "In serving in this
administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief,
President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our
Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination," he said.
Chief
of Staff described Trump as an 'unhinged idiot'
"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the
rails. We're in crazytown," Woodward quotes White House Chief of Staff John Kelly as
saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is
the worst job I've ever had."
Kelly, however, has firmly
denied the allegations, dismissing the chapter about him as "total
BS."
Staff snatched documents from Trump's desk fearing he might sign them
Former Chief Economic Adviser Gary Cohn, according to Woodward, once saw a draft letter on
the Oval Office desk that would have withdrawn the US from a trade agreement with South Korea.
"I stole it off his desk," Cohn told an associate, allegedly terrified Trump might
sign it. "I wouldn't let him see it. He's never going to see that document. Got to protect
the country." Former staff secretary Rob Porter, who handled the flow of presidential
papers, allegedly used similar tactics on several occasions.
However, according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, the entire book is nothing
more than a bunch of "fabricated stories" told by "disgruntled" former
employees to make the president "look bad."
Egypt's president wondered if Trump
was 'going to be around' for long
According to Woodward, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is one of the world leaders
who was worried the infamous Mueller probe might eventually result in impeachment. "Donald,
I'm worried about this investigation. Are you going to be around?" al-Sisi allegedly said.
Trump supposedly later told his lawyer that the question was "like a kick in the
nuts."
Amid the barrage of firm denials by Trump and his team, Woodward
reiterated that he "stands by" his reporting and the book's contents.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... "This is very different from Watergate. This is gossip. Much of it is anonymous gossip, so it feeds this neverending reality television show political drama that cable news channels like CNN are making quite a bit of money off of," ..."
"... "It's always something, it's endless burlesque, and this feeds into this kind of narrative." ..."
"... "a little more likely to side with Woodward on this one," ..."
"... "At the same time, 70 percent of the people in this country are in pretty severe economic distress, and their voices are not being heard at all, and I think that that's why Trump's base remains firm, because these people have been rendered invisible by the press... that has just become a giant carnival act," ..."
"... "shady world of anonymous sources" ..."
"... "Institutions like the New York Times... use language about the president that would've been wholly unacceptable when I was there. Calling him a liar day in and day out – that doesn't mean he didn't lie, but presidents lie all the time, and every administration I covered lied, starting with the Reagan administration. This is really a war on the part of the establishment press, the Washington establishment, to take down Trump." ..."
The paradoxical era of anonymous anti-Trump reporting has turned once-solid journalism into
a carnival of unverifiable accusations. True or not, they distract from real issues, says
Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges. A new bombshell book about the horrors of
Trump's White House is about to hit the shelves. This time it's not penned by a disgruntled
former official, but the world-famous Bob Woodward – the investigative journalist who
uncovered the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. Only this
time, instead of doing solid, verifiable journalism, he is peddling damning claims by anonymous
sources, says Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and author.
"This is very different from Watergate. This is gossip. Much of it is anonymous gossip,
so it feeds this neverending reality television show political drama that cable news channels
like CNN are making quite a bit of money off of," – Mr. Hedges told RT. "It's
always something, it's endless burlesque, and this feeds into this kind of narrative."
This doesn't mean accusations against Trump are necessarily false – in fact, Mr.
Hedges says he's "a little more likely to side with Woodward on this one," – but
it does draw attention from America's real issues, and thus further entrenches Trump's voter
base.
"At the same time, 70 percent of the people in this country are in pretty severe
economic distress, and their voices are not being heard at all, and I think that that's why
Trump's base remains firm, because these people have been rendered invisible by the press...
that has just become a giant carnival act," Mr. Hedges says.
The "shady world of anonymous sources" has enabled phenomena like the recent New
York Times op-ed by a supposed anonymous White House insider, claiming there's a 'Resistance'
hotbed within the heart of the presidency. Chris Hedges, who has worked at the NYT for 15 years
himself, says the media's war on the president is like nothing he has seen before.
"Institutions like the New York Times... use language about the president that would've
been wholly unacceptable when I was there. Calling him a liar day in and day out – that
doesn't mean he didn't lie, but presidents lie all the time, and every administration I covered
lied, starting with the Reagan administration. This is really a war on the part of the
establishment press, the Washington establishment, to take down Trump."
Nice post and well put.
I am currently sitting in an office where 30% are blaggers of the highest order. They talk
and kiss ass - but ultimately - deep down - know they cannot do they do not know the job. The
responsibiltiy they have will make you shudder. I have told friends and they are visibly
shaken that this can happen. But I think it is the way of the world at the moment. They dare
not argue with me for full knowledge they will be sent packing, they already have been but on
"minor" non work related items.
"Fake it til you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences
however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will
get found out in a week.
Yes the likes of Trump are a reflection of just that.
The mad thing is - I now am of the belief that I could do that job ie President of the US.
That is madness.
to foil the wishes of the elected members of government.
No. Just one member. And that one member isn't a supreme leader. You need to look
elsewhere for those types of leaders - they're usually standing next to Trump while he fawns
over them.
Personally I'm grateful for a bureaucracy that frustrates bad ideas - wherever they
come
from. That's part of their role.
Everything, with the exception of Steve Bannon in Michael Wolf's book, has been anonymous.
These people write things, attribute them to, say, John Kelly, then Kelly says I NEVER SAID
THAT and we're left to believe whom?
If there is genuine resistance inside the White House to Trump- If it is at all like
anybody says- then I would imagine that a genuine top level appointee would go on camera,
throw themselves on their sword, and speak to the American people. Until such a time I
question what is Woodward's agenda? Do I trust Omarosa? Is Michael Wolf credible? What are
their goals? I'm not blind but I want to see more than anonymous. And until then... I don't
believe it.
I agree, I'd hate to defend him either, but you can't help thinking he has a point by
calling this person gutless. Either stand up in public and say it or, if s/he really is
working in the background to save us from Trump's excesses, then surely you're better off
(and the country as a whole) staying there and not alerting him?
It's the New York Times, and no, they certainly haven't been against Trump since his
election.
Their lead White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, still writes extremely
understanding pieces of Trump. And she's been covering the man for almost 15 years, so one
would think she had the measure of the man long ago.
More importantly, the NYT threw the election for Trump by first exonerating Trump of any
Russian collusion - which was false - and by covering the last-minute Comey statements on the
Clinton emails in the worst negative light possible for the Democratic candidate. The NYT
turned out to be wrong, but the damage was done.
The NYT even tried to put new faces on their opinion staff with close connections to
actual American neo-Nazis (!) and only failed when old tweets came to light.
I'm not quite sure what the NYT is playing at - I guess it's easy to play the devil's
advocate in artsy-fartsy, liberal New York - but they most certainly have not been
against Trump from January 2017 at all.
Trump is not a freedom fighter, he is not your Great White Messiah, he's not an advocate
for blue collar American citizens. Trump is a stupid, vulgar, greedy old fat racist who
conned his way into the White House. There has been a lot of talk in all mediums about his
unsuitability for the office, and his obvious ties to the Kremlin, but there has been no
organized effort to remove him from office, no matter what you might have read on Qanon.
You think the entire population is incapable of thinking about serious issues because there's
some tittle-tattle on twitter? When did that happen? No-one would work because there's always
fluffy kittens on YouTube.
Most probably this anonymous official does not exist and this is Iago style disinformation operation by the NYT to saw
discord in trump administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Does the so-called "Senior Administration Official" really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? ..."
Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump said: "If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility
to publicly stand by their words."
Why does it matter?
The White House is already on the defensive amid questions over Mr Trump's suitability for office raised in a book by revered
political journalist Bob Woodward.
Fear: Trump in the White House also describes staff deliberately undermining the president, with some hiding sensitive documents
from him to prevent him signing them, and other aides calling him an "idiot" and a "liar". Mr Trump has called the book a "con".
Image deleted (copyright REUTERS) Image caption Bob Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in the US
One of the most explosive passages in the New York Times article says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking
the 25th Amendment", which would allow Mr Trump to be forced out of office.
"What the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil," he wrote. "He or
she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president's willfulness."
So much puzzles me about Mr/Ms Anon in @ nytimes - if you really
think best interests of state are served working covertly inside to thwart president, why blurt out what you're doing? Aren't
you making @ realDonaldTrump case of a
# DeepState ? Surely resign or keep schtum?
Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump
Does the so-called "Senior Administration Official" really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another
phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her
over to government at once! 2:54 AM
- Sep 6, 2018
End of Twitter post by @BBCJonSopel
A former CIA director, John Brennan, who has been strongly critical of Mr Trump, called the article "active insubordination" although
he said it was "born out of loyalty to the country".
More plausible theory is that it was written by NYT staff in Iago-style operation to saw discord in Trump administration
and promote Woodward's book
Notable quotes:
"... might be just what the NYT wants the Trump Whitehouse to waste time on. ..."
"... It could very well be a trap. In fact, the timing almost guarantees it. The other alternative is that the NYT is very desperate and the Deep State in dire straights. ..."
"... I don't think the op-ed piece came from anyone in the WH. It's fake but rest assured Trump can still use it to his advantage. ..."
"... The "op-ed" was likely either a set-up fabrication / amalgam from the CIA Toilet Paper of Record or some deluded over ambitious piece of shit like Nikki Haley. ..."
1) The NYT OpEd was actually written by one of the people who were fired during the very
EARLY days of the Trump administration because they turned out to not be so good (like
Bannon, Preibus, Walsh, Yates, Comey, Spicer, Gorka, Tillerson, McMaster, etc). This also
makes sense because they are describing (very exaggerated) the early days of the Trump admin
which were known to be somewhat chaotic before Trump got a good chief of staff (because
Preibus was useless)
2) The NYT has been holding onto the letter for almost two years as a weapon to use during
the mid-term elections
3) Looking for them inside the current administration is useless, because they are already
long gone
4) The NYT is probably stretching the truth about them being "senior" official which they
have a history of stretching the truth on for sources
5) It is also the exact same person as the (primary/only) source for all the accusations
in Woodward's book
Assuming this was written recently is a HUGE tactical oversight and might be just what the NYT wants the Trump
Whitehouse to waste time on.
Brazen Heist II ,
It could very well be a trap. In fact, the timing almost guarantees it. The other alternative is that the NYT is very desperate and the Deep State in dire
straights.
FreeEarCandy ,
"Issue Of National Security" and "looking into legal action".
If its a "REAL" issue of national security looking into legal action is non sequitur. You
raid the NYT and send all the usual suspects to Guantanamo Bay for a little water
boarding.
This whole stunt is pure political mind fuckery. Since when does the justice department
determine if we can legally defend our national security?
Kreditanstalt ,
Trump, like the rest of the Deep State elite, detests and is enraged more by "disloyalty"
among fellow elitists than by the opposition!
Dangerclose ,
I don't think the op-ed piece came from anyone in the WH. It's fake but rest assured Trump
can still use it to his advantage. I'll bet he gets EVERYONE to show a little more support
and less resistance. Hmmmmmm?
benb ,
The "op-ed" was likely either a set-up fabrication / amalgam from the CIA Toilet Paper of
Record or some deluded over ambitious piece of shit like Nikki Haley.
In any event it doesn't
matter. It's all about subversion. The Communist Party USA (Democrats) and Deep State know
they are about to get their asses handed to them in November.
They're are a bunch of desperate assholes at this point. Heads up. Be ready for anything
from here on out.
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no
more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their
pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources
are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't
know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close
to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for
which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in
it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front
pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage.
The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on
September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad
– bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas
Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite
obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's
"amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the
trust of one's superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing
measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust
military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which
could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model
of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.
The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which
White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with
Russian and North Korea.
Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and
dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations
with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman
service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch
mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing
the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence.
Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are
visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat
Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize
the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The
dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to
distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington,
Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and
betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded
by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people
systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick
might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is
much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly
matters since they are so closely entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power
territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other
media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among
others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the
text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look
at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write
the letter."
Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't
that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback
grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more
serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and
"instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative
pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If
Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his
mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he
says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy
from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to
breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on
teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to
blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten
the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States
pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former
Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural
resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States
has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO
countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their
own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United
States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form
of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is
what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
"... Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss. ..."
"... The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing about it." ..."
"... A report of mine in the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell , founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration." ..."
"... "We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic . "How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy . ..."
"... There's more than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week. ..."
"... But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente . Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya -- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of voters." ..."
The Coup Against TrumpOne of his advisors tells TAC a plot is afoot. How far will
the president go to ensure his political survival?
... ... ...
Donald Trump rose from pariah to president through politics, and now may be on the brink of
being returned by the same means, the result of Bob Woodward's searing testimonial in
Fear and a scathing New York Times op-ed from someone in his own ranks.
Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse
right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss.
A former senior administration official tells me that Wednesday's
op-ed in the New York Times , by an anonymous senior administration official, is
nothing short of an attempt at a "coup" against Trump himself. A veteran conservative activist
who is close to the White House says the story here is one insiders have been identifying since
the early days of the Trump administration (and that I've reported on
ad nauseum ): personnel.
The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper
of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing
about it."
Something tantamount to a national game of "Clue" is underway. It was Mike Pence, with an
email to the Times , in the Naval Observatory. It was Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Jr.,
with the phone, in the bathroom of his Moscow apartment. This reporter is loathe to delve into
conjecture, but the author of the op-ed seems clearly to be, first, interested in national
security, and second, a traditional conservative. A preponderance of my sources argue that the
simplest explanation is usually the correct one. "[National Security Advisor John] Bolton would
shock me," a State Department veteran says.
The op-ed author writes: "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of
the steady state." He (or she) maligns the president as "amoral" and devoid of "first
principles." A veteran watcher of Secretary of Defense James Mattis tells me that "'steady' is
a favorite Mattis word. I think the McCain funeral hit Mattis hard." Yet even if the president
suspected his defense chief, he would be loathe to quickly dispatch him -- and anyway Mattis
may leave on his own after the midterms.
♦♦♦
A case of seismic duplicity -- or needed patriotism, depending on who you talk to -- is, of
course, only half the story.
The other half is one that has been recurrent throughout this administration: the president
and his apparatchiks expended little initial capital on staffing the White House with genuine
loyalists, or true believers. They appointed neither longtime personal friends of the president
nor policy hands faithful to anything resembling a populist-nationalist agenda. News reports
abound of the president's surprising and depressing paucity of genuine friends.
As I relayed last week
in TAC : "A former senior Department of Defense official [being considered] for top
administration positions recalls meeting Jeff Sessions after the election. After hitting it
off, the future AG asked the candidate: ' Where have you been? '"
A report of mine in
the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of
Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely
asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell ,
founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of
the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never
evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration."
The president suggested that the op-ed was perhaps "TREASON?" He routinely conflates
national interest and personal interest, and thus now demands that the Times betray its
source. In doing so, he denigrates a founding ideal of the republic, prepared to erode civic
support for the First Amendment to dull the pain of an atrocious but largely self-inflicted
news cycle.
The personal nature of the president's complaint convulses the persuasive authority of the
arguments against his opposition. Since the publishing of the op-ed, there has been a steady
trickle of concern, particularly among left-liberal writers, about the precedent being set.
"We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic .
"How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy .There's more
than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week.
And indeed there are parts of the op-ed that are cause for genuine concern:
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies
as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks
about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and
he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country
for its malign behavior.
Treating Russia as the adversarial power that it is and proportionately punishing its malign
behavior smacks of sound policy. But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente
. Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author
suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with
Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And
so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent
Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya
-- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of
voters."
Beyond the substantive criticisms from both sides, of Trump and of his critics, is the
diagnostic nature of the conspiracy -- and it is a conspiracy -- against the president. First
and foremost, Trump, they say, is unwell or unfit. The case for invocation of the 25th
Amendment is being made plainly in the pages of the United States' most-read newspapers.
What's truly remarkable is that, to a certain extent, the U.S. is already functioning as
though the 25th Amendment has been invoked -- at least if the reporting of Bob Woodward, the
premier journalist of his generation, is to be believed. In spring of 2017, after Syrian despot
Bashar al-Assad reportedly murdered citizens in rebel-held territory with chemical weapons,
Trump, according to Woodward, told Defense Secretary Mattis: "Let's f**ing kill him! Let's go
in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them." Mattis replied, "We're not going to do any of that."
(Mattis denies Woodward's accounts.) As the author of the op-ed gloats, this is "is a two-track
presidency. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly."
The debate, then, isn't about policy. It isn't as though Trump is trying to decimate the
civil service, or staff the State Department with "realists" on Russia, or halve legal
immigration. If he leaves office, his legacy will be tax cuts and (likely) two conservative
Supreme Court justices; on policy, it's unlikely that a President Cruz or Rubio would have done
much differently. But the paranoid style that Trump has mainstreamed is, of course, a separate
matter and not a small one. Neither is the fealty, or at least feigned fidelity, to a
populist-nationalism that is now likely a prerequisite to becoming the Republican presidential
nominee for the foreseeable future. That's even though, at their core, the president's
protestations of "treason" and a "deep state" are about personal survival, not the
implementation of a nationalist revolution.
For his supporters, Trump's continued occupancy of the White House is more about cultural
grievance -- a middle finger to a failed establishment -- than about a knock-down, drag-out
fight over real political change.
As Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard after his ouster last year: "The Trump
presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."
Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he covers
the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency.
Striding to the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy.
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and
petty," he said, "trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured
outrage. It's a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new
determination: from here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded
immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed.
Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Senator Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've
heard is the noise of democracy."
But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain
why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a
semblance of order.
Wednesday came leaks in the Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book,
attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and General James Mattis crude remarks on the
president's intelligence, character, and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a
"crazytown" led by a fifth or sixth grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official"
claiming to be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of
his [Trump's] agenda."
A pedestrian piece of prose that revealed nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily
in the media, the op-ed nonetheless caused a sensation, but only because Times editors
decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray
his or her president.
The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.
While the Woodward book may debut at the top of the New York Times bestseller list,
and "Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what
this portends is not good.
For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime
our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is
afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by
a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press
plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled, or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two
years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a
hate-filled city for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt,
Kennedy, and Johnson years.
So where are we headed?
If November's elections produce, as many have predicted, a Democratic House, there will be
more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government
may be able to manage.
There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was
inaugurated. There is the investigation into his business and private life before he became
president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump
Foundation by New York State.
There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments
Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report on the leaks from all
of these investigations.
Then, if the media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment
investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.
If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even
as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and a septuagenarian caucus led by
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.
2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before
a new generation says enough of all this?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
On NBC's Thursday morning broadcast of the "Today" show, former CIA director John Brennan
repeatedly praised the unknown author of the New York Times's recent anti-Trump op-ed as a
supreme example of "courageous" American patriotism. While admitting that the anonymous writer
was committing "active insubordination" with the piece, Brennan justified his or her actions by
claiming that because Trump is too "unfit" to be President, the writer is admirably trying to
"prevent disasters" in the future.
"I think there are two major takeaways," Brennan told "Today" co-host Savannah Guthrie in
relation to the op-ed. "One is, what the author wrote is wholly consistent with all the reports
that we have seen over the last year, the reports within Bob Woodward's book, and other things
about just how unfit, reckless, irresponsible Donald Trump is. But secondly, it shows the depth
of concern within the administration, within the senior ranks of the administration, about what
is happening and the extraordinary steps that individuals are willing to take, such as this
op-ed, to prevent disasters."
Sara h
Huckabee Sanders has a tiny request: Please stop asking her about that pesky little
New York Times op-ed written by an anonymous White House official.
... ... ...
On Thursday, Sanders tweeted a message addressed to all the people "asking for the identity
of the anonymous coward" (basically, everyone).
The media's wild obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly
tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great Americans who
proudly serve our country and work for President Trump. Stop. If you want to know who this
gutless loser is, call the opinion desk of the failing NYT at 212-556-1234, and ask them.
They are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act.
We stand united together and fully support our President Donald J.Trump.
Whoever it was, this "gutless" person seems pretty craven, opportunistic neocon of McCain
flavor. Most neocons are chickenhawks. And there are plenty of neocons in Trump
administration.
It might well be that anonymous "resistance" op-ed in NYT is CIA operation to promote Woodward's book ( Woodward is definitely
connected to CIA from the time of Nixon impeachment)
Notable quotes:
"... You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions ..."
During an interview with Fox and Friends, conducted onstage prior to Trump's rally and set
to air on Friday, the president called the paper's decision to publish the column "very
unfair".
"When somebody writes and you can't discredit because you have no idea who they are,"
Trump said. "It may not be a Republican, it may not be a conservative, it may be a deep state
person that's been there a long time.
It's a very unfair thing, but it's very unfair to our country and to the millions of
people that voted really for us."
Since the editorial was published, the highest-ranking officials in Trump's administration
have come forth to
publicly deny any involvement. Those distancing themselves from the column have included
the vice-president, Mike Pence, and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with much of
Trump's cabinet. The first lady, Melania Trump, also condemned the author and called on the
individual to come forward.
"You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions," she
wrote.
The editorial was published as the White House was contending with yet another
firestorm.
A book authored by the famed journalist
Bob Woodward , poised for release next week, chronicles the chaos and dysfunction within
the Trump administration.
Excerpts released on Tuesday provided an unflattering portrait of the
president, who was described by aides in disparaging terms that included being likened to a
schoolchild.
What is interesting is that Wolffe links the op-ed and publishing Bob Woodward's latest
book: "Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk."
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort. ..."
"... Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly. ..."
If you really believe your boss is a threat to the constitution which you've
taken an oath to protect, perhaps you should consider quitting or going public. As in: going on
Capitol Hill to hold a press conference to urge impeachment.
In this regard, and only in this regard, our anonymous whistleblower has handed the crazy
boss a degree of righteous indignation.
"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist," tweeted the madman in the
attic, "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at
once!"
Donald, we feel your pain, albeit briefly. Your internal enemies are indeed gutless, and if
you feel better putting that in ALL CAPS, that's fine. Let it out.
But that bit about turning people over to you for national security reasons is kind of the
point here. If you'll allow us to summarize the GUTLESS person's arguments: you are
fundamentally a threat to democracy and national security yourself. You are indeed, as your
lawyers have pointed out repeatedly, your own worst witness.
This much we know from this week's other bombshell in the shape of Bob Woodward's latest
book. Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk.
... ... ...
Mr or Ms GUTLESS describes Trump's decisions as "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally
reckless", while chief of staff John Kelly says Trump is "an idiot" living in a place called
"Crazytown". This revelation led to the priceless statement from Kelly where he had to deny
calling the president an idiot.
Somewhere in Texas, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson is swirling a glass of bourbon
muttering that he lost his job for calling Trump a moron.
Second, Trump's staffers are enabling the very horrors they claim to hate, while grandiosely
pretending to be doing the opposite.
Mr or Ms GUTLESS says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th
amendment" in what he imagines is a clear sign they can distinguish reality from reality
TV.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Trump cabinet: please know that you will not be accepted into
the next edition of Profiles in Courage for your early whispers. If you truly believe the
president is incapacitated, you should perhaps consider raising your voice to at least
conversational level, if you're not inclined to bellow from the mountaintops. Library rules are
inoperative at this point.
Given the weight of evidence, even the most diehard Trump defenders are now conceding the
obvious, by signing up to the GUTLESS gang's self-promotion. Brit Hume, a Fox News veteran, let
the cat out of the bag when he tweeted that it was a "good
thing" they were restraining Trump "from his most reckless impulses".
This is how the pirate ship Trump eventually sinks to the ocean's floor. You can fool some
of Fox News's viewers all of the time, and you can fool all of them some of the time.
But no fool wants to drown with the captain we all know is plain crazy.
It's someone high up that makes policy decisions, brags about everything they have done to
help America despite Cheetos interfering. Why now? Pence wants it known that he is running
the government not useless trump whom has passed nothing. Pence will come out as the author
when Don is removed from office. Which could be nearing since this OPED is likely to expose
him. Maybe he planned it that way.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's
White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each
other.
Clearly a massive conspiracy. And one which Trump is helpfully participating in by
constantly saying and doing stuff which accords with the pictures they're all painting.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White
House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other. All
these sources come together to display a rather coherent image of a chaotic White House led
by a man who's not bright enough to realize he's in over his head.
The New York Times attack piece was anonymous. It is therefore completely unverifiable and
could have been written by anyone, including any of the politically biased NYT editorial
team, or by Bob Woodward to publicize his new book. It's junk news.
I'm firmly convinced that when it's all said and done we'll be able to represent his
presidency as an MMO boss fight. This is the bit where everyone concentrates fire on the
glowy spot until the enrage mechanic kicks in. In fact it looks like the mad flailing has
started and now everyone will try not to stand in the AoE as they DPS him down.
Mussolini was in power for twenty years before his functionaries deposed him to keep the
regime intact while removing its newly-a-liability head. Mussolini was the legal (if
abhorrent) premier of a coalition government in a liberal-democratic (both words with a pinch
of salt) regime for his first two years, until winning a parliamentary majority of his own;
indeed, after the leader of the Socialist Party was killed by his supporters, his coalition
partners almost pulled out of government: that's not a totalitarian dictatorship, but what
was then called "pre-fascism", and today we'd call it an 'illiberal democracy'. The
dictatorship was informal (result of a supportive majority) until the constitional reform of
1928 - five years into his government.
Thinking that all will turn out fine because American democracy is under strain but
generally intact, is a dangerous complacency. All interwar autocrats went through a
transition of first governing under the old constitution, slowly undermining opposition, then
installing a new organic law. Perhaps all will turn out well in the US, and Trump will leave
office with the old 'rules of the game' untouched - but that can't be assumed, and we won't
know until after he is gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back
- we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
Truckloads of "anonymous bollocks" reported by credible, highly respected journalists with
excellent reasons to protect their sources.
"Anonymous" bollocks" which syncs perfectly with events and pronouncements by the
president himself - including numerous firings of so many of the "best people" he hired.
"Anonymous bollocks" confirmed in evidence/testimony presented publicly and under oath in
court.
Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is
prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story.
Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort.
There is a segment of this country that is willfully ignorant because a con man told them
to be. We really need to ignore this shrinking number of fuck-nuts and just out vote
them.
We live in a democracy. If you choose to use facebook as your only source of news about the
world, it is not because a con man told you to, it is because you are just too plain stupid
to go looking elsewhere.
I'm surprised that no one has compared the author of the anonymous article in the New York
Times with "Deep Throat", who anonymously met Bernstein and Woodward in an underground
parking garage in Washington to spill the beans about Watergate. Deep Throat turned out to be
Mark Felt, a high-ranking official in the FBI who kept working against Nixon under cover and
whose name was revealed only a few years ago.
Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he
or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the
Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation,
ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem
prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and
resigning publicly.
Screw whoever it is, they are obviously no hero to the American people.
Looks like this Iago-style false flag operation by NYT: the anonymous author does not exists and the the plot is to saw
discord and mutual suspicion
Notable quotes:
"... The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. ..."
"... If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects' continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism. ..."
"... As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. ..."
"... Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I'm going to say probably. ..."
If any evidence existed to be found that Donald Trump had illegally colluded with the
Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, that evidence would have been picked
up by the sprawling surveillance networks of the US and its allies and leaked to the Washington
Post before Obama left office.
Russiagate is like a mirage. From a distance it looks like a solid, tangible thing, but when
you actually move in to examine it critically you find nothing but gaping plot holes,
insinuation, innuendo, conflicting narratives, bizarre mental contortions to avoid
acknowledging contradictory information, a few arrests for corruption and process crimes, and a
lot of hot air. The whole thing has been held together by nothing but the confident-sounding
assertions of pundits and politicians and sheer, mindless repetition. And, as we approach the
two year mark since this president's election, we have not seen one iota of movement toward
removing him from office. The whole thing's a lie, and the smart movers and shakers behind it
are aware that it is a lie.
And yet they keep beating on it. Day after day after day after day it's been Russia, Russia,
Russia, Russia. Instead of attacking this president for his many, many real problems in a way
that will do actual damage, they attack this fake blow-up doll standing next to him in a way
that never goes anywhere and never will, like a pro wrestler theatrically stomping on the
canvass next to his downed foe.
What's up with that?
... ... ....
As you doubtless already know by now, the New York Times has made the wildly controversial
decision to publish an anonymous op-ed
reportedly authored by "a senior official in the Trump administration." The op-ed's author
claims to be part of a secret coalition of patriots who dislike Trump and are "working
diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." These
"worst inclinations" according to the author include trying to make peace with Moscow and
Pyongyang, being rude to longtime US allies, saying mean things about the media, being
"anti-trade", and being "erratic". The possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment is briefly
mentioned but dismissed. The final paragraphs are spent gushing about John McCain for no
apparent reason.
I strongly encourage you to read the piece in its entirety, because for all the talk and
drama it's generating, it doesn't actually make any sense. While you are reading it, I
encourage you to keep the following question in mind: what could anyone possibly gain by
authoring this and giving it to the New York Times ?
Seriously, what could be gained? The op-ed says essentially nothing, other than to tell
readers to relax and trust in anonymous administration insiders who are working against the bad
guys on behalf of the people (which is interestingly the exact same message of the right-wing
8chan conspiracy phenomenon QAnon, just with the white hats and black hats reversed). Why would
any senior official risk everything to publish something so utterly pointless? Why risk getting
fired (or risk losing all political currency in the party if NYTAnon is Mike Pence, as
has been
theorized ) just to communicate something to the public that doesn't change or accomplish
anything? Why publicly announce your undercover conspiracy to undermine the president in a
major news outlet at all?
What are the results of this viral op-ed everyone's talking about? So far it's a bunch of
Democratic partisans making a lot of excited whooping noises, and Trump loyalists feeling
completely vindicated in the belief that all of their conspiracy theories have been proven
correct. Many rank-and-file Trump haters are feeling a little more relaxed and complacent
knowing that there are a bunch of McCain-loving "adults in the room" taking care of everything,
and many rank-and-file Trump supporters are more convinced than ever that Donald Trump is a
brave populist hero leading a covert 4-D chess insurgency against the Deep State. In other
words, everyone's been herded into their respective partisan stables and trusting the
narratives that they are being fed there.
And, well, I just think that's odd.
Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame ? He was inducted
in 2013, and he's been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan
and as a performer .
He's made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight
scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump
administration currently).
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility
that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides
routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly
loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open
already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while
working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal
exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl
and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy
when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?
I believe that a senior Trump administration official probably did write that anonymous
op-ed. I do not believe that they were moved to write it out of compassion for the poor
Americans who are feeling emotionally stressed about the president. I believe it was written
and published for the same reason many other things are written and published in mainstream
media: because we are all being played.
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms.
The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing
the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more
importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If you can separate the masses into two
groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined
"us vs them" narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats
reversed in each case. Now you've got Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats
cheering for the CIA, for the FBI, and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be
operating on the inside of Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of
the US power establishment or another.
If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects'
continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't
know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a
ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas,
and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them.
You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them
off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and
heroism.
As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of
its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by
attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it
will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart
his agendas of peace and harmony. Meanwhile those who see Trump as a heel won't experience any
cognitive dissonance if any of the establishment agendas they support are carried out, because
they can give the credit to the secret hero squad in the White House.
Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of
staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it?
I'm going to say probably.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
So now we know what 'the resistance' really is. It's the establishment. It's the old
political order. It's that late 20th-century political set, those out-of-touch managerial
elites, who still cannot believe the electorate rejected them. That is the take-home message of
the bizarre political spectacle that was the burial of John McCain, where this neocon in life
has been transformed into a resistance leader in death: that while the anti-Trump movement
might doll itself up as rebellious, and even borrow its name from those who resisted fascism in
Europe in the mid 20th-century, in truth it is primarily about restoring the apparently cool,
expert-driven rule of the old elites over what is viewed as the chaos of the populist Trump /
Brexit era.
The response to McCain's death has bordered on the surreal. The strangest aspect has been
the self-conscious rebranding of McCain as a searing rebel. In death, this key establishment
figure in the Republican Party, this military officer, senator, presidential candidate and
enthusiastic backer of the exercise of US military power overseas, has been reimagined as a
plucky battler for all that is good against a wicked, overbearing political machine. 'John
McCain's funeral was the biggest resistance meeting yet', said a headline in the New
Yorker , alongside a photo of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and
soldiers from the US Army, the most powerful military machine on Earth. This is 'the
resistance' now: the former holders of extraordinary power, the invaders of foreign nations,
the Washington establishment.
The New Yorker piece, like so much of the McCain commentary, praises to the heavens the
anti-Trump theme of McCain's funeral. McCain famously said Trump couldn't attend his funeral.
And that in itself was enough to win him the posthumous love of a liberal commentariat that now
views everything through the binary moral framework of pro-Trump (evil, ill-informed,
occasionally fascistic) and anti-Trump (decent, moral, on a par with the warriors against
Nazism). Even better, though, was the fact that orators at the funeral, including McCain's
daughter Meghan and both Bush and Obama, used the church service to slam Trumpism, without
explicitly mentioning it, and in the process to big-up what came before Trumpism, which of
course was their rule, their politics, their establishment. The Washington political and media
set might seem bitterly bipartisan, said the New Yorker writer, but it is also 'more united' in
one important sense - 'in its hatred of Donald Trump'.
Hatred of Trump has become the moral glue of the bruised elites who have been either pushed
aside or at least dramatically called into question by the populist surge taking hold in the
West. And so motored are these people by the shallow moralism of Anti-Trumpism that they are
happy to marshal even a life as complex and interesting and flawed as McCain's to the service
of hurting Trump. A former Al Gore adviser, Carter Eskew, wrote in the Washington Post: 'In
death, John McCain is about to exact revenge on Donald Trump.' Unwittingly revealing the Old
Testament streak to the new elite religion of Hating Trump, Eskew said that as 'McCain ascends
to heaven on an updraft of praise, Trump's political hell on Earth will burn hotter'. On why it
suddenly started to rain when McCain's coffin was brought into the Capitol, a CNN journalist
said: 'The angels were crying.' What century is this?
The religious allusions, the talk of vengeance against Trump, the misremembering of McCain's
life so that it becomes a moral exemplar against the alleged crimes of Trumpism, exposes the
infantile moralism of the so-called resistance. Albert Burneko, assessing some of the madder
McCain commentary, says there is now a 'condition' that he calls 'Resistance Brain', where
people display an 'urge to grab and cling on to anything that seems, even a little bit, like it
might be the thing that Finally Defeats Donald Trump'. Even if the thing they're grabbing on to
is actually a bad thing. Like a seemingly endless FBI investigation into the elected
presidency. Or George W Bush, whose moral rehabilitation on the back of Anti-Trumpism has been
extraordinary. Or neoconservatism: this was the scourge of liberal activists a decade ago, yet
now its architects are praised because they subscribe to the religion of Anti-Trumpism. Being
against Trump washes away all sins.
Some on the left have criticised the moral rehabilitation of McCain. 'Let's not forget that
he wanted war with Iran and lots of other places too!', they cry. Yet the truth is they paved
the way for his posthumous rebranding as one of the great Americans of the late 20th century.
Since 2016 they have talked about Trump as a uniquely wicked president, a shocking aberration,
the closest thing to Hitler since the 1930s. Their anti-Trump hyperbole, driven by their own
political disorientation and increasing sense of distance from the electorate, has allowed any
politician who is not Trump to mend their reputations and gloss over their own destructive
behaviour. The transformation of Trump into the bête noire of all right-minded
people, a pillar of unrivalled wickedness that we all have a duty to protest against in our
pussy hats and orange wigs, has been a boon to the wounded pre-Trump political class keen both
to whitewash its own crimes and to prepare for its return to the position of power it enjoyed
before the electorate was corrupted by 'post-truth' hysteria.
'The resistance' is the fightback of the establishment against the people. As it is in
Britain, too, where the rich and influential people fuelling the war on Brexit - the largest
act of democracy in British history - like to refer to themselves as 'insurgents'. It is the
height of Orwellianism for these acts of elitist reaction against democratic dissent to dress
themselves up as forms of resistance. But it is not surprising. From the get-go, the so-called
resistance has been more a pining for the old establishment, for Hillary's rule and for the
continued domination of Britain by the EU, than it has been any kind of daring strike for a new
politics. Look closely at the funereal elitism of McCain's burial and you will see one of the
saddest and most striking political developments of our time: how self-styled radicals
preferred to throw their lot in with the old establishment under the umbrella of 'the
resistance' rather than heed ordinary people who were saying: 'Let's tear up the old
order.'
Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked. Find him on Instagram: @burntoakboy
"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the
rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I
don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."
(CNN) WARNING: This story contains graphic language.
President Donald Trump 's
closest aides have taken extraordinary measures in the White House to try to stop what they saw
as his most dangerous impulses, going so far as to swipe and hide papers from his desk so he
wouldn't sign them, according to a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.
Woodward's 448-page book, " Fear: Trump in the White
House, " provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's
inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward
uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers
view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in
chief.
Many of the feuds and daily clashes have been well documented, but the picture painted by
Trump's confidants, senior staff and Cabinet officials reveal that many of them see an even
more alarming situation -- worse than previously known or understood. Woodward offers a
devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides -- both
current and former Trump administration officials -- grew exasperated with the President and
increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.
Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports.
Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth
grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a fucking
liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special
counsel Robert Mueller.
As was no doubt their intent, the mainstream media has succeeded in overshadowing the Kavanaugh
confirmation hearing with a flurry of stories about a mutiny allegedly brewing inside the West Wing
that has set
more than a
few
tongues
wagging
about the
possibility of Trump's cabinet invoking the 25th amendment
(an eventuality that was once reportedly discussed by former White House Chief Strategist
Steve Bannon
). But while White House officials have already vehemently denied the quotes
gathered by Bob Woodward
in the strategically leaked (to his own newspaper) excerpts from the
Watergate reporter's upcoming book, speculation is shifting to
who might be the mystery author
of a scathing NYT op-ed reportedly penned by a "senior
administration official" that portrays Trump as unfit for office.
Fortunately for Trump, several voices of moderation have come forward to condemn the attacks
(amid speculation that the Times' "senior" source may not be so senior after all).
But this
incipient backlash didn't deter Axios (a media org that, like the Times, is notoriously critical of
Trump) from piling on with a story about President Trump's intensifying distrust of those in his
inner circle.
Trump, Axios claims, is "deeply suspicious of much of the government he
oversees" from federal agency grunts all the way up to those privileged few with unfettered access
to the Oval Office. The piece even goes so far as to quote yet another anonymous "senior
administration official" as saying that "a lot of us are wishing we'd been the writer."
"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating - that people seem so shocked that there is
a resistance from the inside," one senior official said.
"A lot of us [were] wishing
we'd been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows - maybe he does? - that there are
dozens and dozens of us."
And in case you couldn't figure out why this is important, allow
Axios
to elaborate:
Why it matters:
Several senior White House officials have described their
roles to us as saving America and the world from this president.
A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider
Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.
But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies -- and
particularly in the foreign policy arena.
In what was perhaps the most bombastic claim included in the piece, Trump reportedly once
carried around with him a list of suspected leakers.
"The snakes are everywhere but we're
getting rid of them,"
he reportedly told
Axios.
For some time last year,
Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people
suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.
"He would basically be like, 'We've gotta get rid of them.
The snakes are everywhere
but we're getting rid of them,'"
said a source close to Trump.
Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted.
He often
asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only
be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left
not knowing who to believe.
And just in case you haven't read enough about Trump's purported obsession with "snakes" -
here's some more.
"When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in
the White House,"
said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the
president.
"Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings,
he would sit down
at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind
him."
"One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to
leak. I don't know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."
All of this reinforces the idea that Trump truly believes that there is an organized "deep
state" conspiracy to take him down.
Of course, what Axios neglects to say,
is that he's
not wrong.
"Trump flopped as an owner of a professional football
team, effectively killing not only his own franchise but
the league as a whole... He bankrupted his casinos five
times over the course of nearly 20 years. His eponymous
airline existed for less than three years and ended up
almost a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And he has
slapped his surname on a practically never-ending
sequence of duds and scams (Trump Ice bottled water,
Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks,
Trump
magazine, Trump
Mortgage, Trump University -- for which he settled a
class-action fraud lawsuit earlier this year for $25
million)."
And Kruse didn't even mention The Donald's sixth
bankruptcy, the one he filed for the debt-ridden Plaza Hotel
in 1992.
So, people, what do you think Trump, the
bankrupter-in-chief, is gonna do to the good old US of A?
That's one of my major hopes for this presidency. That
Trump can get us through the coming bankruptcy without
a large scale war/depression breaking out.
"one senior
official said"... oh really, why should I believe
that? When something is obvious BS, repeating it
just makes you look foolish, it doesn't make it
true, Hitlers propaganda play book is dated and no
longer functions in the age of the internet. At
least we know that Operation Mocking Bird is alive
and well.
This just shows us how they keep recycling
the same shit bureaucrat's over and over
again and they become an animal that lives
within and outside of whomever is POTUS.
Perhaps it's time to burn the whole thing
down and start over again.....
We the People are not so
schooled in the finer points.
We have rope and can see
treason with our own eyes, and
figure to do our part, be
civic minded for the greater
good and all.
If he has the power to do it, the time is
right to declassify some major bombs on the
swamp.
It sounds sensational but it's also
a step in the right direction to move the
capital out of DC. It really is the nerve
center of raunch, deceit, fraud and an
irredeemable shit hole.
Agreed, but moving won't help. The problem
is the concentration of money and power.
You could move the capitol every day and
the swamp would follow like remoras follow
a shark
The only way to deal with the Debt, is to grow the
economy and shrink it on a relative basis. So much
of the past debt was incurred on non-productive
expenditures that yield no returns.
Trump knows
that. Amazing what he gets done with all the
snipers outside and all the cockroaches inside. A
lesser man would have said fuck it a long time ago.
Its as if they think the people actually support
the Deep State Establishment and don't loath them.
Please tell me how I should really love John McCain
again now that he's dead.
"Trump, Axios claims, is
'deeply suspicious of much of the government
he oversees'
"
Again, if people believed the corporate
media Trump wouldn't be president right now,
HIllary would be, so that fight is pretty
much over.
Also, just because you are paranoid and
think they are all out to get you doesn't
mean it isn't true!. Of course the deep
state hates Trump. It's all just a circus
and a show until it's not. I really don't
know what Trump is waiting for. Call Bill
Binney in and get your heads together and
take down all the deep state.
PUT THEM ALL IN PRISON.
Yes, it will wipe out the whole government
as we know it.... but that is why Trump was
elected in the first place.
a very big part. rub is, i don't think he
knew. i think wray came in on a "if you
don't appoint him, the FIB is going to be
without a director" sort of threat. i think
sessions totally ass raped trump.
as for the remainder of his
administration, if you turn the white house
into goldman south, what exactly do you
expect for an economic plan.
as for the pre-election dumbfucks saying
trump is an executive, he will appoint good
people, and let them do their jobs. i
haven't seen one good appointment yet out of
trump. out of all of his appointments, scott
pruitt was the best and trump should have
backed him up, but didn't. he was sacrificed
to the environmentalists.
holee shit!!!!!
have i got an off topic comment to make.
i clicked on the globalintelhub link at
the top of the page about the possible source
of the op-ed.
what i found about one fourth of the way
into the article stopped me dead in my
tracks. this is the comment that did it:
But what is news in this disclosure
are the
newly
released emails
between Mark Mazzetti,
the New York Times's national security and
intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman
Marie Harf.
you see it? do you see it? MARIE
HARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
does that name ring a bell? it damn well
should. she was a long time spokeshole in
the HNIC state department. she is the one
who uttered the phrase:
We need in the medium to longer term
to go after the root causes that leads people
to join these groups, whether it's a lack of
opportunity for jobs,
jobs for jihadists!!!! and this whore
still has a job in gov't? as a CIA
spokeshole? RUFKM
my fucking gawd get rid of these fucking
people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So if they go 25th Amendment on him will
Trump supporters chimp out or wait for the
proof to be presented and evaluate if his
staff have a vaild point?
Edit: I mostly
agree with your post and thats why I have
been so critical. What I saw early on, and
since, has been one big clusterfuck of
"you keep making decisions that in no way
reflect a person who is as awesome as you
promised."
Figures. When you are blocked from pillaging foreign
nations, you of course turn to the idea of bankruptcy.
You people just don't seem to understand that you are
not kings and queens, but common folk and you should
pay your debts, and tighten your belts. It would be
relatively short term pain for long term gain.
That,
more than anything else, speaks to the absence of any
character in the American make up.
I'll not believe it until Woof Shitzer and/or
Rachel Madcow confirm these rumors.
Radical Left
Plagiarist Farheed Diarrhea has evidently been
preoccupied by being dumped by his wife after 21
years of hardship so we won't be hearing his inane
comments bashing Trump for awhile.
Zakaria was suspended for a week in August
2012 while Time and CNN investigated an allegation
of plagiarism
[46]
involving an August 20 column on gun control with
similarities to a New Yorker article by
Jill Lepore
. In a statement Zakaria apologized,
saying that he had made "a terrible mistake."
Go back to Chinese Tire and buy some "made in
Canada" crap. Tell me again how the "Canadians"
co-opted the British in 1812 . Watch some more
Franz Kafka on the CBC, the Chinese Broadcasting
Corporation and explain to the CAW in southern
Ontario how Justine Twinklesocks traded auto worker
jobs for the Quebec Milk Quota.
There are
Canadians with character, but you ain't one of
them.
The US went into receivership in 1933, so I guess
"make it bankruptier?"
I have no problem with this,
since it's going to be interesting to see how the
debtors (The US and its employees) are going to pay
the creditors (that would be the Citizens) back for
the $17 trillion they owe us.
Going to have to be one helluva bake sale.
But my guess is they will just throw another woar
and kill off another generation of Creditors like they
have done for the past century. (And collect the
insurance premiums, since Social Security Insurance
pays out to the primary beneficiary first..and that
would be...The US GOv).
What? You thought Social Security was for YOUR
benefit?! Hahah, silly wabbits.
Is Vice President Mike Pence trying to pull off a "House of Cards"-style scheme to undermine Trump
and increase his own chances of assuming the presidency?
Apparently, more than a few journalists
believe that might be the case. According to the Huffington Post, some believe that
the use
of a single word - "lodestar" - is a crucial tell
pointing toward Pence as the op-ed's
author. During the op-ed's final paragraphs the mystery author refers to John McCain as "a lodestar
for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue."
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter.
All Americans should
heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our
shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example - a
lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.
Mr. Trump may
fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put
country first.
But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above
politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one:
Americans.
Pence has, of course, categorically denied these allegations and affirmed his loyalty to the
president.
Still, one video circulating on twitter shows Pence using the word in eight different speeches
dating back to 2001, when he was a Congressman from Indiana.
At the very least, there's some evidence to suggest that the author is a man. As Bloomberg's
Jennifer Jacobs pointed out yesterday, the Times' official Twitter feed may have inadvertently
revealed their gender.
For those who aren't familiar with the word, Merriam-Webster defines "lodestar" as
"a
star that leads or guides"
or a person who
"serves as an inspiration, model, or
guide."
To be sure, the Pence theory isn't without its holes. Trump staffers have said previously that
they pay attention to the idioms employed by others as a defense mechanism when speaking to the
press under the guise of anonymity.
"To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in
my background quotes.
That throws the scent off me," one White House official told
Axios
.
But online betting markets have put Pence at the top of the list of suspects, with MyBookie
currently
reflecting 2-to-3 odds
on Pence as the culprit, per the
New
York Post
. The favorite right now, at 1-3 odds, is "the field" - i.e. someone not listed among
the 18 most likely senior admin officials, according to the Costa-Rica-based betting operation.
Still, at first brush, the theory makes a degree of sense:
As first in line for the
throne, Pence undoubtedly has the most to gain from the collapse of the Trump presidency.
But it's equally likely that a more junior official could've intentionally included these cues to
sow discord in the ranks.
As the Trump administration has proved time and time again, anything is possible in the West
Wing.
not sure pence is entirely a team member ... he has been told
to wait for more ... being around the trump tower, you can see
why pence would believe it besides the fact that he must have
been talking to real players that he knows they are real
players ...
having said all that, 100% this is coordinated ... it is no
coincidence it comes out at the same time with Bob Woodwards
book, Theresa May verdict on assailant of the failed attempt to
kill in salisbury soil, big offensive in Idlib (where trimp is
doing a 180 degrees and being a team member again ... to name
just a few ... it is the end of the line ... that economist
magazine "prediction" from 1988 on 30 years later comes to mind
... time for the US to come down hard i suppose ...
No way is the op-ed writer VP Pence. It
doesn't have his boring Midwestern tone.
It seems much more likely that the
letterbomb was written by a group --
not
in
the administration.
Rather, a
group of Deep State crybabies who aren't
getting their way and have devised this
lame, transparent effort akin to
Valley girls passing notes in homeroom ...
"like, I mean, um, whatever" ... because
they're too dumb to do anything else. And
the NYTimes ate it up.
But he IS a moron. All the war mongering pharisees are
morons.
Pence is a pro war psychopath who is very much
disconnected from his tortured soul and is a simple
biological robot devoid of higher levels of thought.
Pence is literally a moron. Only humans have souls and
access to imagination, inspiration, intuition, empathy:
pharisees DO NOT. They are all robotic machines: morons.
There being so many convoluted theories floating around,
here's mine. Trump, Pence and friends arranged this whole
editorial/reaction incident. As you point out, many other
stories were suddenly demoted to by-the-way status. This
gives Trump another reason to urge his supporters to be
enraged. It also could provide courage for purges within the
administration, someqthing it has long needed. Diverse
elements of the MSM are even attacking each other.
Ultimately, ask yourselves: cui bono? Who benefits?
It is
all too confusing. I'm getting a headache. Back to munching
on dark chocolate and watching cat videos.
Millions were beginning to think that that Trump wasn't
really leading the charge against the NWO and that he was
really
part of the NWO himself
--just like the NYT and the
person who wrote the op-ed, but by attacking Trump, these
NWO stooges
proved
Trump is leading the charge
against the NWO, and
proved
(after the
Sarah Jeong scandal
) to just as many others that the
NYT really is the most trustworthy institution in America
... just when both the NYT and Trump needed some street
cred the most ... and there's no way we are getting
played ... and there's no way this could be just theater
... or a psyop ... oh wait ...
Wasn't there a ZH article a few weeks ago about an algorithm that
could predict the author of a text, to a very high 90's percentile,
based on speech patterns?
I say we try it out and root out this
"saboteur".
However, I think we'd find that they are a fake.
Something about it feels contrived, why would a deep spate
functionary expose the apparatus that controls power regardless of
who is elected? What is the first rule of Fight Club?
I have a suspicion it is a plant, in an effort to convince the
masses that the deep state does exist. They are preaching to the
choir here at ZH, but 98% of the country has absolutely no idea what
the fuck Deep State even means. This makes it real for the common
man, In that respect, I guess it's a good thing. It just feels fake
though.
This whole year is playing out like the script from "House of Cards."
Now the MSM is calling for Trump to be removed as "unfit to hold
office." Liberals have hated Donald Trump since he first appeared on the
scene oil the 1970s as a loudmouth trust fund developer. They fought
every project he undertook and mocked him. Famously, "Spy" Magazine
belittled him as a "short-fingered vulgarian and Queens-born casino
operator" every time they mentioned his name, which was often. The
magazine's editor, Graydon Carter, despised Trump. Trump predicted the
magazine would fail within a year. So Carter put a calendar in the back
of the magazine, tearing off the days to prove Trump wrong. Alas, Trump
was right, and Spy shuttered before the year was out. It was a shame,
because the magazine was terrific and funny, but it had that typical
liberal New York Ivy League snottiness and superiority.
As
embarrassing as Trump may be, and he is certainly that, he is not
insane, nor unable to do the job. You may hate the job he is doing, but
this country has laws. If Mueller proves Trump committed real crimes
that mandate his indictment and removal, then so be it. But until then,
just because he runs a chaotic ship doesn't mean he can simply be taken
out.
"... "When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make themselves bigger than the entire American system," ..."
"... "extremely self-indulgent." ..."
"... "You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," ..."
"... "If you are this person, you really should resign tonight." ..."
"... "just made things worse," ..."
"... "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have far more impact." ..."
"... "The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is 'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and daring Trump to get worse," ..."
"... "Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far harder," ..."
"... "What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?" ..."
"... "We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because they think that's true," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Press Pundits are lining up to
weigh in on a salacious New York Times op-ed allegedly penned by an anonymous #Resister in the
Trump administration, with some experts on television calling the piece an all-out coup against
the president. The opinion piece in question, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump
Administration," has spawned a level of frenetic punditry not seen since George W. Bush was
spotted
sneaking Michelle Obama a cough drop. Only this time the stakes are allegedly much higher.
MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace said on Wednesday the stunning claims made in the anonymous op-ed
– for example, that there is a group of "adults" in the White House who believe
Trump is unfit to hold office and are trying
to shape policy behind the president's back – are akin to "a coup."
"In other countries... they sometimes call this a coup," Wallace said on MSNBC's
Deadline: White House, referring to the article's assertion that there is a
"resistance" made up of administration officials which aims to protect the republic
from Trump's "amorality."
Another MSNBC talking head, Howard Fineman, said that he was troubled by the fact that the
op-ed appears to describe how "unelected aides have staged a slo-mo coup." Impeachment
– not "frenzy, mutiny and rumors" – is the antidote to Trump's criminal
unfitness for public service, he added.
The @nytimes
essay is troubling. Why? 1. The dangerous, ignorant volatility of @realDonaldTrump . 2. The claim
by UNELECTED aides to have staged a slo-mo coup. 3. The NYT letting the accuser hide.
#Trump 's unfit, but
caution: impeachment -- not frenzy, mutiny and rumor -- is the answer.
But others were even less impressed by the anonymous scoop-provider. Fox News host Sean
Hannity called the author of the op-ed a "swamp sewer creature who can't stand that there
is a new sheriff in town."
Hannity calls the senior Trump administration official who wrote the NYT op-ed a "swamp
sewer creature."
Speaking with Hannity on his program, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said
that the anonymous author had "repudiated our whole constitutional process."
"When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make
themselves bigger than the entire American system," Gingrich
said .
Dana Perino, the former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, called the
mysterious author of the op-ed "extremely self-indulgent."
"You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no
doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," she
said .
"If you are this person, you really should resign tonight."
Almost all of the nation's sharpest political minds were in agreement on one point, however:
This mystery senior government official should reveal him/herself, in order to save America
from fascism, or hokey #Resistance claptrap, depending on whom you ask.
The op-ed "just made things worse," conservative commentator and National Review
senior fellow David French said. "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of
honor speaking openly would have far more impact."
1) The guy is real (no way the NYT puts forth a fake source);
2) His story is likely largely true (perhaps exaggerated at the margins);
3) He's just made things worse.
4) Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have
far more impact
"If you are the author of this and you truly want to effectuate change... you want to do
something in service to the nation, you have to come forward and sign your name to this..
Come forward. You could change the fate of the country..."- @DavidJollyFL w/ @NicolleDWallacepic.twitter.com/d9l7PMnzkj
"The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is
'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and
daring Trump to get worse," veteran journalist Dan Froomkin said. He added that he thought
it was wrong of the Times not to identify the piece's author.
The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is
"principled," as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and
daring Trump to get worse. They shouldna granted anonymity.
Much has also been discussed about Trump's reaction to the article.
"Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far
harder," predicted Washington Post contributor Carlos Lozada. "What is the point
of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?"
Gut reaction to NYT oped:
1) Feeds/confirms Trump's worst fears about the deep state plots
2) Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this "internal resistance" far harder
3) What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?
Not everyone is calling for the anonymous author to come forward, however: At least one
pundit claims to already know who penned the troubling opinion piece.
"We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official
because they think that's true," Ben Shapiro tweeted.
We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because
they think that's true.
This really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup
to impose these policies. The op ed suggests the existence of anti-Trump 'sleeper cells' within
the government"
The author also claimed that the administration's achievements had included some "bright
spots" such as "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and
more".
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... is required by their own oath ..."
"... If Anonymous=Deep State, then Trump brought this Deep State with him. These are his appointees ..."
The New York Timespublished
a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration
to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more
prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a
manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of
the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming
that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they
have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue
that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public
service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are
entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to
be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront
to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on
autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.
Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda,"
the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official
says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious
question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any
kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only
enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our
republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his
defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating
the policies of the government to their own liking.
There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the
anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the
administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly
conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about
that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article.
If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of
the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his
resignation.
Who knew the Deep State (tm?) included Trump's political appointees? (see Times guidelines on
who that attribute as "senior administration officials" )
Donald: Yes, but that Deep State was brought in by Trump and is trying to keep their jobs. I
agree with Daniel's analysis, but I am not at all confident that our Constitution is equipped
to deal with a sociopath as President when you also have a legislative branch that knows it
but refuses to do it's constitutional duty.
It is my understanding from carefully listening to Trump Supporters (I am not one) that this
is exactly the reason why he was elected. There is a feeling (particularly strongly felt
among Trump supporters, but a lot of Bernie supporters felt a version of it too) that
although we continue to have elections in this country, that we are ceasing to be a democracy
because decision-making is increasingly being taken away from or being delegated away from
elected officials.
Supporters of a very powerful Executive Branch might argue "hey, it's not exactly the way
that our Founder Fathers envisioned our Federal System to work, but if the Executive takes
decision-making power away from unelected bureaucrats, lifetime-appointed judges, and a
deadlocked Congress, then at least we get to vote every 4 years on kicking the bum out of the
White House or not".
A White House that has decision-making taken power away from the person of the Executive,
thus devolving power back to unelected officials, is a true crisis for democracy. Impeachment
or the 25th Amendment are Constitutional remedies for a corrupt or incapacitated Executive
because they take power away from an elected official and invest them in a new official
subject to election. White House officials secretly undermining the President doesn't pass
Constitutional muster, no matter how bad the President is.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get
it good and hard." – H. L. Mencken
It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. Similar words, written
in response to a popular president, would hopefully trigger an investigation leading to
conviction and imprisonment of those involved.
Every indication is that the writer is correct: Trump is a disaster. But if the writer
wants to live up to his/her claim of putting country first, s/he and the other cafeteria
Republicans (i.e., selective co-conspirators) should stop trying to have it both ways,
keeping their salaries and their positions of power in the name of the Trump administration
while simultaneously reserving the right to undermine it. Instead, they should find the
courage to step forward en masse.
An independent investigator could help them to find that courage. The process of exploring
and publicizing what has gone on, in that White House, may help to push the nation toward a
serious discussion of an appropriate replacement for its present corrupted and dysfunctional
form of democracy.
I have some reservations about this so called 'Resistance' Op-Ed in the NYT. This whole
'resistance' affair sounds hollow and not very authentic to me. I also have reservation about
the new book 'Fear' by Bob Woodward. The book as such probably is needed, but naming who said
what is counterproductive, to put it mildly. I do not think B. Woodward got permission to
assign names to who said what because if he had permission the people to whom some statements
are assigned would not deny them. I suspect that B. Woodward in reality conscientiously works
for D. Trump. Why I do think so: because I can not imagine that he in his book could not
anticipate what D. Trump will do next with those named. The book by B. Woodward will only
help to purge the rest of the moderate people from trump administration and put in their
place his favorites so he will have free hand to do whatever he wants probably until 2024.
I suspect this op-ed is nothing more than someone trying to establish their own personal
defense for when the whole thing comes crashing down. "No no no – don't blame me! I
wasn't really part of it. In fact I was really trying to stop it the whole time." If what
this person is writing is true, then there is a constitutional remedy that he or she is
required by their own oath to implement. Failing to do that, and just trying to
undermine Trump secretly is making them just as guilty. I despise Trump as much as anyone,
but this is not the way to deal with him.
I agree up to a point. If Trump got up one morning and decided he was tired of arguing with
North Korea and ordered a first nuclear strike, I'd hope that there'd be people around him
who would stop him, as that would, no doubt, be in the best interest of the country. To
assume that they'd have time to go through the constitutional removal procedure in time to
stop the needless deaths of millions of people is absurd.
Now, I'm not saying what they are doing is preventing nuclear war. I'm just making the
point that there are limits to your principled position.
"They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating
the policies of the government to their own liking. "
Yes. Creepy. Especially in light of Trump's about-turn on foreign policy, in which this
administration has used our money and military power to serve Israeli and Saudi Arabian
interests instead of America's.
Now we know where the "America First" policy of the campaign went. It went down the Deep
State rabbit hole. We're still mired in the Middle East, still doing favors for Israel and
Saudi Arabia. Things didn't get better. They got far worse.
Hiding behind anonymity I believe shows a lack of courage and conviction. I am surprised a
genuine "newspaper" would even publish the article. How can anyone be believed when they
don;t have the courage to sign their name?
This basically confirms what many have suspected and feared. Neocon Establishment types
worked their way into the White House and have been pursuing their own foreign policy agenda,
exploiting the President's ignorance, stupidity, and impulsiveness.
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" – H. L.
Mencken
Some at TAC have suggested for quite a while that Trump was "hijacked" by his staff at some
point. While most of what he's done is clearly down to Trump himself, those who have
suggested that he has been manipulated and controlled by advisors just got whopping
corroboration from the Woodward book and NYT op/ed.
Under the circumstances, there's obviously concern that foreign countries have been
exploiting the situation. FBI counterespionage agents, a small army of them, should be
checking and re-checking the foreign connections of his current staff, to the extent that
isn't already being done by Mueller.
And it isn't just Russia. China, Israel and Saudi Arabia are obvious suspects, if for no
other reason that they spy on and attempt to influence us with at least the same intensity as
Russia. The investigators should look where Trump has been spending his time in the foreign
policy arena. He has been threatening and pressuring some countries, but he is also doing
favors for others. For what countries has he been doing favors? And in threatening certain
countries is he doing the will of others?
Reminds me of the story of the last days of the Nixon White House, when the pressure was
driving him to drunken wanderings punctuated by near unhinged rants. Senior officials became
so worried that they contacted the pentagon and told them to ignore nuclear launch orders
unless confirmed by someone else.
In all seriousness though, this is less some kind of "deep state" and more of what you get
when you run the White House the way Trump apparently has. He's packed his administration
with people of dubious ability for the most part, with the highest qualification apparently
being how he perceives their loyalty to him. Then he sets them all at odds against each
other, fighting for the scraps of his attention to get their own agendas enacted.
In that kind of environment it's inevitable that someone will believe that One, the
emperor has no clothes, and Two, the agenda they are fighting so hard to shepherd through
this administration is more important than the administration itself. So why not just do an
end run around the moron and do whatever they want.
Ray Woodcock: " It appears to be a confession of treason. "
Only if you regard the US president as a monarch to whom his minions owe a duty of
personal allegiance. Because that is the way treason is typically defined in monarchies. (For
example, in the UK.) In the United States treason has a very different definition. You can
find it in section 3 of article 3 of the Constitution. There allegiance is not to any one
person but to the United States as a whole, and more specifically to the Constitution.
In other words, in the US it isn't treason to betray a president, although I will grant
you many Americans do treat treason as if that WERE the case. But then just how many of them
have even read their nation's Constitution?
Re treason : "There allegiance is not to any one person but to the United States as a whole,
and more specifically to the Constitution."
Yes. There may be treason if a foreign country has infiltrated Trump's staff with
operatives who persuaded Trump to do things against the national security interests of the
United States – actions on behalf of a foreign country that imperil American persons or
property, civilian or military.
The idea that the ethical problem at the White House is not Pr. Trump is pretty odd.
Pr. Trump says GOP legislators shouldn't be prosecuted by DOJ, voting is rigged, FBI is
corrupt, 3 million Mexicans voted, orders economic deal with S. Korea to end, apparently
forgets about it, and etc, and somehow Mr. Larison, David Frum, and David Graham think a
bureaucrat ratting on the President and other bureaucrats frustrating the President's desires
is a constitutional crisis?
When members of the President's own cabinet are taking the same actions as these
bureaucrats, because they think the President is immature, not stable, or immoral?
They work with the President. They would know.
Apparently no one wants to work for Pr. Trump. Why can't he find people who agree with him
and respect him?
Go after Pr. Trump's cabinet members for a deep state, not petty bureaucrats who could be
fired and replaced any time.
Ask yourself why the President can't find good people to work for him.
The answer is tweeting at you every day and the finger should be pointing back at him.
"It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. "
But Trump has been spectacularly disloyal to the people who work for him. Is there anyone
other than family members who he hasn't belittled and attacked? Hell, he's even betrayed
those who voted for him (see long list of broken promises).
Given his own treacherous nature, how much loyalty can he reasonably expect? He must have
already fired half of those he hired, so it's not too surprising that many are now writing
books or telling tales to the NYT or WaPo.
That said, there are probably some real traitors in there. I'd guess most of the real
traitors are spies working for foreign countries, taking advantage of the chaos to get things
done for their foreign masters. That's a real cause for concern.
Clearly this is an admission of a Deep State. Many of you might agree with the politics of
the Deep State operative below but keep in mind he is phrasing the issue in the most
political way possible but that's the point. We don't resolve political disagreements by
using the power if the bureaucracy to tie the President up in say, 'collusion investigations'
in combination with what entrenched agencies want. If we did so we would still be enemies of
Great Britain. Those rogues burned down the White House and armed the Confederates.
The Deep State is trying to get us into battle against the Russians in Syria to create
Iraq 2.0 and is cheering on his mania against Iran for Iraq 3.0.
"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for
autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's
leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to
allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on
another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished
accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed
as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's
spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for
weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with
Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions
on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such
actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable"
All of this is well and good as the expression goes. The anonymous author of the Op Ed piece
should come forward and cease serving in an administration which is at odds with his or her
sensibilities except for one thing that above all else must be considered in this respect:
The Chief Executive has his finger on the button.
The case made by Mr. Larison is correct except for this one major consideration. One
individual can launch a nuclear strike and that individual no matter who it has been and no
matter who it is today and will be tomorrow has that power. Perhaps the time is past due to
reconsider granting one individual with this capacity to act which with one directive sent
directly to our nuclear warhead tipped missile silos may bring the end to our species on this
planet.
Many of the complaints from the NYT's anonymous WH coward - not all, but
many - are ideological: that Trump deviates from GOP orthodoxy, an ideology he didn't
campaign on & that voters didn't ratify. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert
coup to impose these policies. pic.twitter.com/4Qf54JJHN9
Replying to @ggreenwald The irony in the op-ed from the
NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being
"anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes
their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency
Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts);
then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times.
As far as I'm concerned, this entire hellish administration is sheer "madness" and a very
clear indication that this country is in its agonizing twilight.
Each and every senior official in this administration is an enabler of this "shithole"
human being and current president, so there is no such thing as bravery here, just covering
one's tail if a coup were to occur.
Not once, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, has this 'Gutless' wonder decried the
immorality of family separation, employing white racists as policy makers, shredding the
social safety net for millions of this nation's most vulnerable; an outlandish Pentagon
budget and etcetera.
What is solidly on display in this unfolding miasma is a firmly entrenched kleptocracy,
enabled and supported by U.S. corporations and the death of democracy.
The Woodward book seems to me just more kiss and tell stories of the Michael Wolff ilk
(remember him?). The juiciest quotes - Trump being called an idiot by Kelly - is denied by
Kelly himself and most of the others are ex-employees.
A better - more objective - book would
get past the unconventional, apparent chaos of the Whitehouse and perhaps investigate whether
Trumps methods have or will bear fruit.
That perhaps, as David Lynch said, traditional
politicians can't take the country or the world forward - they can't get things done anymore
because they are afraid of political consequences or media backlash. Trump and his ego
doesn't seem to care about that - is that a good thing or a bad thing? Trump has turned
everything on it's head and liberals find themselves allying with establishment politicians
and business groups. It is a fascinating period of political change and time - and better
journalism - will eventually judge Trump more objectively.
'Pence... not a dangerous, mentally ill megalomaniac'
Pence is more dangerous – make that outright terrifying – than Trump. Yes.
Trump is a senile vulgarian oaf – but he doesn't really believe in anything and is
motivated only by his greed and pathological need for self-aggrandizement. He's mentally
incompetent in a very obvious way, which renders him laughably inept at trying to bring his
more odious policy objectives to fruition (in fact, inept at everything, pretty much).
Pence is far more sinister, because he's a dementedly fanatical believer in a
fundamentalist and authoritarian mutation of religion – a crazed zealot. While
sometimes able to imitate the superficial demeanour of a person of sound mind, he is in truth
utterly deranged.
While Trump lies and denies obvious specific facts almost as a reflex, he doesn't really
sustain his warped world view consistently or with conviction that lasts longer than it takes
to play his next round of golf.
Pence vehemently espouses a whole alternative reality based
upon his religious fantasies, and believes he has a mission to impose his delusional ideas in
a punitive and repressive manner on his country's entire population, permanently. He may have
the cunning to be chillingly effective at realising his most ghastly ambitions.
Trump represents a temporary aberration; a collective brain fart. Pence could be the
instigator of a new dark age for the USA
Having seen this type of character assassination visited on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
character assassination before any reported crimes have been proven against them or for that
matter any sexual misdemeanors as president are proven, what exactly is going on here?
I totally disagree with this type of thing even if the person is someone I don't
understand much. The world has come to a dangerous place where digital lynching without
reference to law seems to be the prevailing modus operandi.
A little word of warning. Be careful what you wish for. If Don can be removed prior to the
next election, (and I don't believe that would happen), then Mike Pence takes the reins. He
has just as many crazy notions as his current boss, but is an experienced politician who
knows the ins and outs of Congress. He may get more of the programme through than little Don
can. And that would not be good.
He's done it before. Lots of times.
Example: one of his posts back in April:
"Trump is a genius. Nobody can take him down, the man is a fighter, you punch him and he'll
punch you back 10 times harder. The FBI, Democrats and MSM have tried to take him down since
he decided to run for president, yet he's standing tall and with a 50% approval rating."
There's no point in engaging in discussion with folks like that ...
Welcome to postmodernist politics folks. It will continue to degenerate until, in despair,
people turn toward an orderly system of politics; the Chinese system, the Russian system or
even a coherent religious system. Counsellors will be on hand for those who feel hurt or
upset by the return to authoritarianism -- they will be able to get great treatment in
re-education centres. Just a matter of time before our current system just crumbles from
within.
Yeah they're sucking it direct from Ayn Rand's teat. Bunch of sociopaths. And I think most
political scientists are well aware that citizens united was the death of American democracy
as a representative political system. The illusion of functionality has collapsed under the
weight of corruption. Trump is really just a symptom of that. A giant orange enema of the
state.
LOL. The west is about to collapse. There is no more money to finance the Ponzy Scheme of the
everlasting growth you seem to think is natural. while everyone is distracted in this
dualistic BS, the planet is slowly shutting down her ressources.
The Russia after years of
sanctions have developed an economy that make them less dependant on other countries. So
They will probably less affected by what is coming.
Unless you live in you own bubble, maybe
you noticed that Occidental countries have become empty shells...gutted from their skills at
making stuff. It is all virtual production now...all banking stuff, numbers insurance...most
skilled stuff are either in Germany or in Asia...what is going on?
Trump is a megalomaniac I agree, but he is not dangerous and is not mentally ill.
Mental illness is a real thing and you shouldn't casually trivialize it in this way.
Finally anyone who runs for office as President of the USA is by very definition a pretty
extreme megalomaniac. So you have two points that are not real and/or could be considered erroneous
discrimination and one point that is a prerequisite for any POTUS candidate.
Looking for a reason to impeach him is a ridiculous back to front thing to do and is itself
proof that any impeachment will fail. To impeach someone you must first start with a very
obvious reason.
It's simply not possible to impeach a president because you don't like their politics or
their personality. This whole searching for a reason to impeach is itself evidence that any
impeachment is politically motivated and the very optics of this serve only to strengthen
Trump's own political support in direct opposition.
Trump is President because the DNC was captured by very stupid and deeply corrupt
people.
The author clearly supports a neocon foreign policy. just look at his stance about Russia. Can this me MI6 false flag designed
to paralyze Trump administration by sowing suspicion among the top officials.? British clearly resent Trump attempt to shrink the US
led global neoliberal empire created by his predecessors.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for
ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these
ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of
the people," President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don't get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative
coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust
military and more.
But these successes have come despite -- not because of -- the president's
leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior
officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are
working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive
rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to
be walked back.
"There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to
the next," a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president
flip-flopped on a major policy decision he'd made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in
and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have
gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always
successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there
are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when
Donald Trump won't.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference
for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly,
and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant
to expel
so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and
he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign
behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady
state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet
of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted
to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right
direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather
what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be
stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his
farewell letter
. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim
of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a
lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but
we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put
country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across
the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
I assumed it was an effort at creating some sort of record of resistance. Does anybody
really believe Paul Ryan is retiring from the 3rd most powerful position in the US Government
to "spend more time with family"? The rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Even if Trump serves
out a full four years, anybody too closely tied to this stupid shit-storm of an
Administration will be tarred in public eyes. But, American voters are notoriously forgetful,
and getting out before the ship goes down will probably work.
Funny shit. "the mole" wrote an Op/Ed piece, that contains no information of a sensitive
nature. S/he wrote of their own personal observations working in the White House. There is
nothing illegal in that.
I get that you might not have any functional understanding of
US law, but it is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States is calling for
the arrest of a citizen exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The op-ed piece being anonymous makes me wonder if Mr Trump himself put someone up to do it.
What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic
factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause. It
also offers the president another cudgel against the press that will appeal to his core
constituencies.
Even if Mr Trump isn't capable of coming up with such a scheme, there are certainly those
around him who are.
The statements in the opinion piece are horribly anti-pluralist anti-democratic in
themselves. The writer's nationalist appeal to 'American' unity at the end is based on
everyone uniting around US Republican principles of neo-liberalism, inequality and
militarism. S/he would use a false unity against Trump to impose the worst kind of
conservative fundamentalism and eliminate anything more progressive from the political
spectrum.
Maybe this is mainstream neo-liberal thinking but it's the end of a plural, democratic
state. There would be no more room to discuss inequality, climate change, race or gender
discrimination or new welfare provisions. Just an offer of false unity around hard neoliberal
principles. I guess it's a very similar game to Brexit, which is a choice between
life-threatening asset striping of the UK or May's 'hard right soft Brexit' super
Thatcherism.
The op-ed represents a shocking critique of Trump and is without precedent in modern
American history. Former CIA Director
John Brennan , who has sparred fiercely with the president, called the op-ed "active
insubordination born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump".
"This is not sustainable to have an executive branch where individuals are not following the
orders of the chief executive," Brennan told NBC's "Today" show. "I do think things will get
worse before they get better. I don't know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A
wounded lion is a very dangerous animal, and I think Donald Trump is wounded."
In it, the anonymous author describes Trump as amoral, "anti-trade and anti-democratic" and
prone to making "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions".
The writer claims aides had explored the possibility of removing Trump from office via
the 25th amendment , a complex constitutional mechanism to allow for the replacement of a
president who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but had decided
against it.
An op-ed written in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official in the Trump
administration" has drawn harsh rebuke from both sides of the aisle and beyond - after everyone
from President Trump to Glenn Greenwald to the
Los Angeles Times
chimed in with various
criticisms.
The author, who claims to be actively working against Trump in collusion with other
senior officials in what they call a "resistance inside the Trump administration," has now been
labeled everything from a coward, to treasonous, to nonexistent.
Trump, as expected,
lashed out
at the "failing" New York Times - before questioning whether the the mystery
official really exists, and that if they do, the New York Times should reveal the author's identity
as a matter of national security.
Trump supporters, also as expected, slammed the op-ed as either pure fiction or treason - a
suggestion Trump made earlier Wednesday.
What we don't imagine the anonymous author or the
Times
saw coming was the onslaught of
criticism coming from the center and left - those who stand to benefit the most from Trump's fall
from grace, or at least probably wouldn't mind it.
In an op-ed which appeared hours after the
NYT
piece, Jessica Roy of
the
Los
Angeles Times
writes: "
No, anonymous Trump official, you're not 'part of
the resistance.' You're a coward
" for not going
far enough
to stop Trump and in
fact enabling him.
If they really believe there's a need to subvert the president to protect the country,
they should be getting this person out of the White House. But they're too cowardly and
afraid of the possible implications
. They hand-wave the notion thusly:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of
invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But
no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis."
How is it that utilizing the 25th Amendment of the Constitution would cause a crisis,
but admitting to subverting a democratically elected leader wouldn't?
...
If you're reading this, senior White House official, know this: You are not resisting
Donald Trump. You are enabling him for your own benefit. That doesn't make you an unsung hero.
It makes you a coward. -
LA
Times
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald - the Pulitzer Prize Winning co-founder of
The Intercept,
also
called the author of the op-ed
a "coward" whose ideological issues "voters didn't ratify."
Greenwald continues; "The irony in the op-ed from the NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and
massive:
s/he accuses Trump of being "anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an
unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability,
mandate or transparency.
"
So who is the "coward" in the White House?
While the author remains anonymous, there are a couple of clues in the case. For starters,
Bloomberg
White
House reporter Jennifer Jacobs points out that the
New York Times
revealed that a man
wrote the op-ed, which rules out Kellyanne Conway, Nikki Haley, Ivanka and Melania (the latter two
being
CNN's
suggestions
).
A second clue comes from the language used in the op-ed, and in particular "
Lodestar
"
- a rare word used by Mike Pence in at least one speech. Then again, someone trying to make one
think it's pence would also use that word (which was oddly Merriam-Webster's
word of the day
last
Tuesday).
A pence-theory hashtag has already emerged to support this theory;
#VeepThroat
Given the Op-Ed's praise of the late Senator John McCain, never-Trumper and Iraq War
sabre-rattler Bill Kristol tweeted that it was Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers. Of course, Kristol and whoever wrote the op-ed are ideologically aligned, so one
might question why he would voluntarily work against this person.
So while we don't know who wrote the op-ed, it appears to be backfiring spectacularly on its
author(s) amid wild theories and harsh rebuke from all sides of the aisle.
We're sure Carlos Slim - the largest owner of the
New York Times
and once the richest
man on earth, is having a good laugh at Trump's expense either way... for now.
Perhaps Trump can push the "fabrication" angle longer than NYT can retain the moral high ground
- especially after they hired, then refused to fire,
Sarah Jeong
- a new addition to the NYT editorial board who was revealed in old tweets to be an
openly bigoted, with a particularly deep hatred of "old white men."
The
New York Times
stood by Jeong - claiming she was simply responding to people
harassing her for being an Asian lesbian - only to have their absurd theory shredded within hours
.
Jeong
in fact has a multi-year history of unprovoked and random comments expressing hatred towards white
men.
And now she's right on the front lines of perhaps the greatest attempt to smear Trump yet. Not
exactly a good look for the
Times
at a time when MSM credibility has already taken a hit.
How many
broke bread
with the Clinton campaign leading up to the 2016 election?
Vote up!
158
Vote down!
2
Coup d'etat, in every sense of the word.......Constitution? What's that?
Roaches aren't even scurrying when you turn the lights on anymore. Trying to overthrow an elected standing government is the very definition of
treason.
That is an interesting angle. . . Trump creating his
own narratives by using agents to leak to the
blatently bias NYT. Jeebus, but the trouble that
strategy could cause. Millions out there are wound
tight across Amerika. Wouldnt take much of a spark to
get a good fire going. .
These are all staged irrelevances designed to distract
people...the few remaining people who are not addicted to
their screens. Remember - all media, all members of both
parties, all white house employees and especially Trump
work for the same cabal. No one can step out of line and
stay alive. The cabal knows everything.
If people yell loud and often enough, many will
actually forget that they are now knee deep in
ice-cold saltwater.
#Titanic
Let's focus on the important things, like a
scripted reality show fight, versus, idk, the fact
that we are again on the precipice of yet another
meltdown, only this time the Fed is fucked cause
nobody can borrow anymore $$, interest rates are still
way too low, and we are on our way to a Maunder
Minimum.
I could go on and on with REAL issues, but it seems
we just don't talk about them anymore. No need to see
how medical is bankrupting us, pensions are fucked,
"students" are quickly on their way to being
skullfucked with no way out.
We are setup for a calamity that will be 10x worse
than 2008, and the only thing I hear is the ever
increasing volume of "Everything is Awesome."
My dear, you don't really quite realize what you have
given the Trump Administration.
What the Times have
done is assured their readers that there is a counter
coup currently underway to bring down this sitting
President.
Back up and let that reality marinate.
Understand that now any failings or short comings that
come out of this administration can be laid at the feet
of the saboteurs working to bring down the government.
So if the economy rolls over and dies, it's the
saboteur's fault. If gas prices spike, it's the
senator's fault. If a nuke goes off in an American city,
it's the saboteur's fault. If the President is
impeached, it is the saboteur's fault. Any opposition to
this President from this point on is the result of a
concerted effort on the part of a gang of saboteurs to
bring down the government.
Merry Christmas, you have
just added the raison d'eter for a purge of all Obama
appointees in every executive agency.
President Trump thought that he could 'go along
to get along'. He is a slow learner. Taking credit
for a ginormous stock market bubble created by
cheap credit and buybacks, no real effort to build
a wall, massive tax cuts to
millionaires/billionaires, kissing Israel's ass,
the list goes on and on. The man hasn't done much
of anything to really help the middle class. And,
he hasn't done enough to even protect himself. The
op-ed is a hit piece. So what. But, Trump better
get up to speed sooner rather than later.
Are you really this stupid? The Trump administration
is owned by the banksters, every bit as much as the
'saboteur'. You really don't understand the game at
all.
CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and
sow division in the cabinet shortly before midterms.
If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down
hunting for the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!"
If he doesn't react or address it, it hangs out there,
continuing to make everyone believe he's an unstable bumbling
moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable
genius".
Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted
CIA plot that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done
THAT before) and will continue to backfire. People are so sick
of the virtue signalling horseshit (Nike and Kuntpaernik come
to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire when you try to
do it.
Imagine for a moment that you win the lottery and are appointed the
director of the CIA. Do you have any idea what the CIA does? Do you have
any inkling beyond what you have read in the media and the alternate media
of what agendas are afoot? Do you have any idea of what's at stake? Do
you have a clue about who you can trust? Are the lower echelons for you or
against you? Who do you talk to just to find out what is going on? Once
you are informed can you trust the information? Are the options you are
offered real options or are the serving someone's private agenda?
Now
imagine that you are President of the United States and half the electorate
wants to remove you from office. Who do you tap on the shoulder to
initiate the purge? How do you know they won't purge you?
I never said I was smart but I worked for one of the most corrupt
bureaucracies in the world for about a decade, and I learned a few
things about political tools and how to manipulate the narrative. What
the Times has done is publicly assert that there are saboteurs working
in the Trump administration who are actively attempting to bring down
this President. The Resistance i.e. the Democratic Party through its
mouth piece has openly stated that they are participating in an ongoing
coup to bring down the government. Do you not realize what kind of club
that has just been handed to Trump to beat down his opposition? Any
opposition is now aiding and abetting the attempted coup.
As for
government, the banks lent the money to purchase it in 1913. The banks
running the show is old news.
CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and sow division
in the cabinet shortly before midterms.
If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down hunting for
the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!" If he doesn't react or
address it, it hangs out there, continuing to make everyone believe he's an
unstable bumbling moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable
genius".
Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted CIA plot
that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done THAT before) and will
continue to backfire. People are so sick of the virtue signalling horseshit
(Nike and Kuntpaernik come to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire
when you try to do it.
syria had a legitimately elected government too, and look what's gone on
for the last seven years there.
you think these fuckers at CIA see any
difference between what they are able to do there and here in the US?
over there they drop pallets of weapons from the sky. over here they
drop what passes for information from their mockingbird operations.
same difference.
most america haters here at ZH are laughing because they think this
is the US getting their comeuppance. the comeuppance we are getting is
for challenging those who have been doing this to others for all these
years. it's not other nations turning around and doing this to the US.
it is those who have done this to others, are now doing it to the
citizens of the US. those america haters better hope we citizens win,
if not, that hell trump said would be unleashed on iran, will be
unleashed on the world. and all the hyperweapons invented or dreamed of
will not be able to stop it.
Government , its representatives and its agencies are unscrupulous
and immoral beyond the imagination of a normal person.
Northwoods,
Iraq WMD, Vietnam chemical weapon campaign, The Lusitania, Grenada,
Tonkin, kennedy assassinations.
The amazing thing is how people swallow all that and trot off to
the polls and never ask for any murderous corrupt bastard to be held
to account.
Meanwhile we lost the free press so now no lone voice questions
the moves of the real powers. The waste their voice on partisan
bickering over people who are only puppets leaving real power to play
its global killing games un remarked.
Many say Mike Pence could have been the one behind the op-ed, because the unidentified author
singled out the late John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our
national dialogue." The word isn't that commonly used. But Pence has used the word with some
regularity. Yet the word could have been a ploy to divert attention from the real author, who
claimed to support many of the GOP policies – "effective deregulation, historic tax
reform, a more robust military and more."
No doubt the current crisis works for Pence: "Given the instability many witnessed, there
were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a
complex process for removing the president." Of course he and the GOP didn't want to
"precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration
in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over." But they don't want Trump
to finish his term and hope that he'll soon be gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we
have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
This op-ed is going to absolutely confirm, in the eyes of Trump supporters, all his whines
about being thwarted by the Deep State. It's going to increase his support among the crazies,
and it's also useful for the Republicans who want to ditch him in favour of Mike Pence.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven and for the Democrats or the 'resistance' to see it
as some kind of bonus is insane. Even if you take it at face value it's a disgusting piece of
authoritarian, we-know-best hypocrisy. If you look at its actual effects, the net result is
not likely to benefit the forces of sanity in any way.
The media's complacency about all of this, and their failure to actually report on the
Republican trajectory and the bigger picture, is criminal. Instead we get YET ANOTHER bit of
'oh look the wheels are just about to come off the bus!', and all the while the Republicans
are gerrymandering and purging voter rolls like crazt before the midterms, and of course
refusing to change their unaccountable electronic voting machines and - did you read THIS one
in the news? - blocking a bill which would have audited the election results.
Tl;dr: The US, and by extension the planet via environmental destruction and possibly war
on top, is utterly fucked.
"... Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?.. ..."
Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a
robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times ..
four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly
to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even
before the US military became .. robust?..
What is wrong with you people .. national security?.. Laughable .. when is your security
ever, ever, ever threatened! And yet people starve, people don't have clean water to drink
..
Perhaps were the US to help lift the basic burdens of millions who have bugger all, then
there wouldn't be so many suposed 'enemies'. I do believe film maker Michael Moore has voiced
this very same thing .. but then, what purpose all those shiny new expensive killing
machines?..
Something is seriously wrong in America .. and it ain't just Trump!
This is a very poor op-ed piece. Simply calling the President "a crazy loon " isn't political
analysis, or at least not the sort of political analysis I would be willing to pay for. Nor
do I think the thesis that certain members of the administration are busy trying to shore up
their reputations in the face of a sinking presidency holds water. Firstly, unless the
current investigations provide incontrovertible evidence that the President was engaged in
criminal activity I don't think there is any change that he will be impeached. Secondly, if
you wanted to protect your reputation surely the thing to do would be to resign and maintain
a dignified silence while you are writing your memoirs. Or if you really were part of a
secret clique protecting the American constitution against a reckless President you would
keep quiet and get on with your important business. It seems to me that this anonymous piece
was either a clumsy attempt to further damage the President or a sophisticated attempt to
galvanise his support base by "proving" that the President is being undermined by unelected
traitors. Or something else completely might be going on. That's why I would like to read a
thoughtful opinion piece by an informed observer.
Sounds like there's a treasonous public servant there, doing their best to subvert the will
of the people. And of course loudly supported by the squealing hard left guardian mob.
Looking at the type of far left fascists crawling out of the woodwork, I would say
Trump is provoking utter derangement in all the right people.
"the corrupt metropolitan elites have swindled them again"
-Who appointed these 'corrupt metropolitan elites' if it was not Trump himself? Who are these
people-Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin- quite apart from Jeff Sessions and the now
disgraced Michael Flynn? Trump appointed them, they weren't forced on him by the "corrupt
metropolitan elites". Is Trump to be given a free pass for his own mistakes?
What many commentators here seem to fail to recognise, because of their political bias I
suppose, is that there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the political consensus that
has seen the working class and lower middle class disenfranchised or at least their perceived
interests ignored. As a result, populist ideologies, as espoused by Steven Bannon, and
others, and exemplified by leaders like Donald Trump have thrown away the rule book with all
its aims to support the extremely wealthy and have reached out to those that want jobs before
green policies, law and order before gender diversity programs and so on.
I doubt that many of the readers here will receive the message but we are witnessing a
revolution that I see as significant as the rise of the sans-culottes in the early part of
the French Revolution. That didn't end well for the sans-culottes or their aims but we can
hardly blame them for trying. Today the retrenched car worker in the US can hardly be blamed
for being unhappy that the CEO of a car company receives a huge pay rise and bail outs from
the government and similar stories in other areas.
Vive la revolution.
Some of this stuff is clearly nonsense. Example: the insider claimed Trump is an admirer of
dictators:
"In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,
such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded
nations."
And yet the forthcoming Bob Woodward book claims Trump told his defence secretary he
wanted to kill Assad:
Donald Trump ordered his defence secretary to assassinate Syria's president Bashar
al-Assad and "kill the f****** lot of them" in the leader's regime, in the wake of a chemical
attack against civilians, according to a new book.
Defence secretary James Mattis is said to have told the president during a phone call he
would "get right on it" before hanging up the phone and instead telling an aide: "We're not
going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." In the wake of the chemical
attack in April 2017, the president's national security team developed options that included
the more conventional airstrike that Mr Trump eventually ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-Trump lot can't have it both ways. He can't be a fan of dictators but also want to
kill them! It's clear there is lying or exaggeration on both sides. The people out to impeach
Trump (or sell books!) will lie too.
This is plausible as McCain was involved in Steele dossier saga
Notable quotes:
"... In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John McCain. ..."
"... The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at the infamously anti-Trump New York Times. ..."
"... It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this without a doubt is a strange era in American political life. ..."
Not only was John McCain never in the Trump administration but at
the time when the infamous anonymous New York Times op-ed from a reportedly disgruntled senior
Trump White House official was published, John McCain had been dead for eleven days. Therefore
to suggest that McCain wrote the letter isn't to suggest a belief in time travel or the
supernatural. Instead it is to suggest a calculated scheme from beyond the grave by a man who
famously choreographed every detail of his own funeral during his final weeks or possibly
months of life.
Whoever wrote the letter was clever enough to include in the text a red herring designed to
convince the public and possibly Donald Trump himself that the letter's author was none other
than Vice President Mike Pence. But as Andrew Kroybko
rightly illustrates in his piece on the subject in Eurasia Future, Pence would never be so
foolish as to include in the letter the word "lodestar" as the highly obscure word is
frequently used by Pence while not being a part of the daily vocabulary of most English
speakers anywhere in world. Such an obvious giveaway could have only been planted by design
considering that whoever did write the letter most likely penned the most important epistle in
his or her life.
Making matters more curious, the word "lodestar" appears in the ed-op in the paragraph where
the author negatively compares Trump with John McCain. This itself is an indication that McCain
and his much anticipated death were clear sources of inspiration for the content of the letter
and the timing of its publication. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
"We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a lodestar
for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such
honorable men, but we should revere them".
In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question
in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that
one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John
McCain.
While not casting judgment on the reality that John McCain was indeed a surviving prisoner
of war, it is factually true that unlike many prisoners of war, McCain tended to publicly revel
in his status as a survivor and even used the fame derived from his harrowing experience to
launch a long political career. Because of this, it is not by any means unreasonable to think
that the kind of egotism one associates with McCain might have led him to devise such a
'parting shot' at his powerful and more politically successful rival. This was after all the
man who flew to all corners of the earth even in old age to rally various armed rebellions of
one sort or another from Georgia and Ukraine to Syria and Iraq. It is also instructive to
realise that McCain is the man who without a second thought handed the hoax Steele dossier to
then FBI Director James Comey and later
said the following about his actions:
"I discharged that obligation, and I would do it again. Anyone who doesn't like it can go
to hell".
The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite
simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to
the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly
trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at
the infamously anti-Trump New York Times.
While Donald Trump has suggested that he will use legal pressure to force the New York Times
to divulge the source of the letter, such a matter could take years of back and forth in the
courts, by which time the relevance of the letter would have been greatly reduced by the
passage of time. In any case, as the drafting of the letter may well be a seditious or
treasonous act, unlike an actual member of the Trump White House staff, McCain is currently in
a place where no judge, jury or executioner can reach him.
It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter
was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain
as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this
without a doubt is a strange era in American political life.
"... The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. ..."
The Mainstream Media's latest reports that internet sleuths think that Vice President Pence
probably wrote yesterday's "Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times because of the anonymous
writer's use of the word "lodestar" is nothing more than a red herring by the "deep state" to
provoke a showdown between Trump & Pence ahead of this November's midterms and possibly
even push the President to trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him.
Everyone in the world is wondering which high-level official in the Trump Administration
penned yesterday's
"Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times, but the Mainstream Media is running with the
story that internet sleuths think that it's Vice President Pence because of the anonymous
writer's use of the word "lodestar", which he's publicly used on
at least five separate occasions before. He probably wasn't behind the piece, however, but
his idiosyncratic use of a relatively uncommon word was likely picked up by the "deep state"
well in advance and deliberately inserted into the preplanned infowar provocation that was just
published in order to pin the blame on him as part of a larger scheme to sow discord in the
White House.
The "deep state" wants to provoke Trump to unleash one of his famously scathing and
unscripted tweets against Pence, which would irreparably ruin their professional relationship
but also throw the President into a constitutional conundrum because he can't
legally fire his Vice President no matter how much the two might come to hate each other as
a result of this devious psy-op. Running with this scenario for a moment, whether Trump tries
to fire a publicly insulted Pence or seethes with rage because he can't, the resultant turmoil
that would play out in the Mainstream Media would be enough to seemingly confirm all of the
accusations of chaos that Bob Woodward alleged in his upcoming book, therefore potentially
tipping the midterm electoral scales to the Democrats' favor.
Reviewing the fast-moving developments of the past couple of days, it's inarguable that The
Establishment planned for all of this to happen far in advance as part of their plot to
undermine Trump ahead of the midterms, with the phased escalation of their infowar campaign so
far moving from Woodward's book to the anonymous "Resistance" op-ed and finally to the claims
that Pence is somehow involved because the unknown author cleverly inserted a very uncommon
word that he's known to occasionally use. While Trump will probably display more common sense
that he's regularly given credit for and likely won't fall for the trap of jumping the gun and
publicly condemning Pence, he's in a dilemma when it comes to identifying who's behind the
scandalous op-ed.
Trump has no choice but to order an immediate investigation on national security
grounds after it was revealed that a high-ranking official in his administration is
supposedly conspiring with others to sabotage the policies of the democratically elected and
legitimate President of the United States, but this is predictably being framed by the
Mainstream Media as a "witch hunt" that they'll soon try to compare to a "Stalinist purge" (if
they haven't done so already). Actually, they seem to secretly hope that Trump becomes paranoid
to the point of overreacting and punishes or publicly embarrasses innocent members of his staff
in order to counterproductively create an internal "Resistance" where there might not have even
really been one to begin with.
Whatever ends up happening, and the latest "deep state" coup attempt against Trump has only
just begun, this much is certain, and it's that the inclusion of the word "lodestar" was a red
herring designed to manipulate the President's mind after he finds out that the Mainstream
Media is promoting internet sleuths who apparently "discovered" that Pence used this uncommon
word on several occasions. The whole point at this stage is to provoke Trump, who they
mistakenly believe to be an unhinged maniac incapable of controlling his actions and prone to
lashing out at whoever and whenever at the slightest hint of an affront, to publicly attack
Pence and then trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him, all of which would be
taking place in front of the entire nation ahead of the upcoming
midterms.
Trump's much too clever to fall for this trap, and the fact that something so blatantly
obvious has been attempted speaks to just how much his opponents underestimate him, but he
nevertheless needs to be careful that he doesn't take action against any innocent members of
his administration who might get caught up in the current investigation to find the traitor and
their ilk, if they even exist. This means that he has to trust whoever it is that he's
dispatched to dig up evidence on this issue and won't doubt the findings that they present to
him, after which he'll have to determine whether they're also being set up just like Pence is
or if they're actually guilty as charged. Trump's toughest tests are therefore ahead of him and
could make or break his presidency in the coming days.
DISCLAIMER:The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which
is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing
written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions
of any other media outlet or institution.
he reversed the war in afghanistan? drones? did he prosecute bankers? does he favor
increasing offshore drilling? now it looks like he's renegotiating clinton's nafta and
pushing for some version of obama's trade treaties. trump is the invading python, and the
democrats and establishment republicans are the alligators; whichever wins, the small furry
animals get eaten. i just hope they don't start world war 3 while they're settling
things--trump looks to be doubling down on obama's syria policy too, and support of the
current ukrainian government.
'Fraid so. Every new generation of neocons regurgitates the same discredited lies from the
previous generation, and suckers believe them all over again. Even the title "neocon" or
"neoliberal" is a lie: there's nothing new about them.
Trump was not only openly attacked during the nomination process, the Republican Party
nominee who was selected to fight Obama in 2012 -Mitt Romney- delivered a savage attack in
which he described Trump as a con-man and a chronic liar -yet the same people who could,
there and then have told Trump to get lost backed him. Trump has been attacked from the start
and every time and all of the time said to his attackers: so what? I dare you to remove me
from the nomination, I dare you to remove me from the Office of President. This is a man who
is challenging the governance of the US in a manner no other President has done before, and
so far, he is still winning. That is the scary part.
Trump is threatening Deep State corruption by placing his own family members in positions of
power and profiting from charging the nation for his and his staff's repeated use of Trump
Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That's a bizarre way of draining the swamp.
The US political system has many flaws, not least that the President can be elected on an
apparent electoral college landslide while losing the popular vote. But then again no
country's political system is perfect, human nature being what it is.
However, Trump is clearly not up to the job. Not by intellect, understanding of world
affairs, honesty, temperament, respect for the law, nor constitution. The list goes on
frankly.
The system has gone bad. Trump hasn't "drained the swamp", he's made it far deeper. That
said, "the system" such as it is should work in the hands of honest men and women of
integrity. The trouble is they're few and far between in the GOP as it wilfully ignores
issues in which they would be clamouring for a Democrat president to be impeached.
I sincerely hope the GOP get a thrashing in the mid-terms which may, just may, give them
pause for thought. A Democrat Congress might also actually hold Trump to account. The only
danger there is that he lashes out with even less self control.
Dangerous times.
This is a classic color revolutions trick, usually called "Diplomats letter". Used many times
in many color revolutions worldwide. In EuroMaydan it preceded "sniper massacre".
Notable quotes:
"... I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels for a change. No doubt, this is hardball. ..."
Now that ridiculously juvenile NYT's "op-ed" starts to make sense...they were given a
heads up on the GJ proceedings against this "stellar public servant" and wanted to knock it
off the front page.
What's in my head is declassifying a bunch of nasty shit.
Either way, if NYT made up fake news pretending to be a senior white house official, OR,
there really is somebody in his inner circle anonymously stabbing POTUS in the back, it is
very bad news and there should be serious hell to pay. I do not like nor trust a single one
of his appointees so I'm guessing it's somebody. It would be suicide for NYT getting caught
making this all up, that would be risky business IMO.
This isn't a complicated timeline of he said, she said over this piss dossier that glosses
people's eyes over. This is very simple stuff people can understand and Trump could make a
very rational case that the swamp is so damn deep he can't even put together a staff without
it being infiltrated and say "here look" and declassify shit that would encompass ALL the
recent scandals and ensnare the fake news experts colluding to make this happen.
That would light a big fire in DC that would be very hard to put out.
Well personally I don't believe for one second that the "op-ed" was anything other than
Fake Nuuuz.
As far as ordering the release/declassification of everything the DoJ & FBI has on the
Hillary Dossier I believe it's getting close but it's a hardball kind of swamp, it would be
before the midterms for maximum effect I would think.
I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation
and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels
for a change. No doubt, this is hardball.
"... Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it. ..."
"... When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely attributed to a "senior Trump official." ..."
"... Anonymous dissent has no credibility. ..."
"... A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent. ..."
"... thwart his and his fellow co-conspirators' plot by revealing it! ..."
"... This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function. ..."
"... Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? ..."
"... removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? ..."
Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it.
When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a
clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely
attributed to a "senior Trump official."
I know who wrote the anonymous "senior Trump official" op-ed in the New York Times. The New
York Times wrote it.
The op-ed ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50194.htm
) is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can
state with certainty that no senior official would express disageeement anonymously.
Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the
character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his
high position to lend weight to his dissent.
The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York
Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin
without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented
unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New
York Times about anything.
Consider also whether a member of a conspiracy working "diligently" inside the
administration with "many of the senior officials" to "preserve our democratic institutions
while thwarting" Trump's "worst inclinations" would thwart his and his fellow
co-conspirators' plot by revealing it!
This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion
throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning
is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot
function.
The fake op-ed serves to validate from within the Trump administration the false reporting
by the New York Times that serves the interests of the military/security complex to hold on to
enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace. For example, the alleged "senior official"
misrepresents, as does the New York Times, President Trump's efforts to reduce dangerous
tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and
dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un"
over America's "allied, like-minded nations." This is the same non-sequitur that the New York
Times has expressed endlessly. Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for
dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times has never explained, and
neither does the "senior official."
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever
received, is a dictator? Putin stepped down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms
and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators step down and sit out
for 6 years?
The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a
"deadly Russian nerve agent," an event for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has
anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire Skripal event rests
only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it
was: to box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who
attacked the Skripals with a deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior
official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior official in any
administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York
Times does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget
from any reduction in the "enemy threat."
Do you remember when Condoleezza Rice prepared the way for the US illegal invasion of Iraq
with her imagery of "a mushroom cloud going up over an American city"? Iraq had no nuclear
weapons, and everyone in the government knew it. There was no prospect of such an event.
However, there is a very real prospect of mushroom clouds going up over many American and
European cities if the crazed Russiaphobia of the New York Times and the other presstitutes
along with the Democratic Party and the security elements of the deep state continue to pile
lie after lie, provocation after provocation on Russia's patience. At some point, the only
logical conclusion that the Russian government can reach is that Washington is preparing
Americans and Europeans for an attack on Russia. Propaganda vilifying and demonizing the enemy
precedes military attacks.
The New York Times' other attack on President Trump -- that he is unstable and unfit for
office -- is reproduced in the fake op-ed: "Given the instability many witnessed, there were
early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex
process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior
official."
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a
senior official would write that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered
removing him from office? What is this statement other than a deliberate effort to produce a
constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC,
and the New York Times. A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all
about.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any
of these conspirators given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president
for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? The
next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions
that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and
putting America at risk."
The reason that America is at risk is that the CIA and the presstitute media have put
America -- and Europe -- at risk by frustrating President Trump's intention to reduce the
dangerous level of tensions between the two major nuclear powers. Professor Steven Cohen,
America's premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as
they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I
myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the
liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of Donald Trump, together with the self-interested
power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the Democratic Party,
are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out
their hate and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and
peoples of the world act now to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us
all.
--Dr. John Gartner, psychiatrist, founder of Duty to Warn, and
co-editor of the book "Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump," joins
David to update us on what he sees are the accelerating cognitive decline and mental state
of Donald Trump
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
'Treason or fake news?' Trump urges NYT to reveal its White House 'resistance' insider
