Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

[Cosmos]

My take on Pence is that he is more likely to be antagonistic to Trump, for the simple fact that he hasn't been and doesn't get mentioned or attacked much. If he was in "cahoots" with POTUS-T he would likely get a share of the "love" too.

Good point!

 

[Ant22]

My take on Pence is that he is more likely to be antagonistic to Trump, for the simple fact that he hasn't been and doesn't get mentioned or attacked much. If he was in "cahoots" with POTUS-T he would likely get a share of the "love" too.

Good point!

I came across the below article on RT earlier today. Although many of Trump's speeches have been poorly (to put it mildly) written too, the below article raised lots of red flags in my head:

In Balkans speech, Trump’s VP pledges allegiance to the swamp
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/398765-balkans-trump-pence-yugoslavia/

Washington’s role in the 1990s bloody breakup of Yugoslavia is the oft-forgotten prologue in the modern history of American empire. Though President Donald Trump promised to restore the US republic, his administration is quickly reverting to imperial form.

August 5 marked the 22nd anniversary of a Croatian offensive (Operation Storm) that obliterated the centuries-old Serbian community living in what was known as the Serbian Krajina. The Serbs of Western Slavonia had been driven out or killed in May 1995. Both operations were undertaken with tacit approval from Washington, after Croatian forces were armed and trained by US contractors in direct violation of a UN arms embargo.

In fact, US diplomat Richard Holbrooke recalled in his memoirs (To End A War, first published in 1998) how he and his colleagues would coordinate Croatian attacks while the State Department and the Pentagon officially spoke against them. Holbrooke also presented the US involvement in Croatia and Bosnia ‒ which resulted in the Dayton Accords of 1995 ‒ as a triumphant reassertion of American power in Europe, after the end of the Cold War led some on the continent to ponder the need for US dominance.

While it was tempting to dismiss Holbrooke’s characterization as self-serving in 1998, just a year later NATO began its drang nach Osten, adding the first Eastern European members even as it launched a war of aggression against the remnants of Yugoslavia. The latest shard of the former federation to join was Montenegro, in June 2017.

For the purpose of bringing all of Yugoslavia’s ruins into the alliance, in 2003 Washington sponsored the so-called Adriatic Charter, a sort of “Junior NATO” club anchored by Croatia and Albania. Though both were admitted into NATO in 2009, the organization’s purpose is not yet complete, US Vice President Mike Pence told the gathering of its leaders in Podgorica, Montenegro on August 2.

“For 15 years, the United States has helped guide your countries as you walk the path toward peace at home, unity in Europe, and allied for our common defense,” Pence said. “Take this opportunity, through your actions, to draw even closer to each other and to the West; complete the unfinished business of the Western Balkans; and finish the journey that we started together so many years ago.”

Holbrooke himself could have delivered Pence’s Podgorica speech, had he not died of a ruptured aorta in 2010. Likewise the former secretaries of state, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton. Sure, Pence made a couple of references to President Trump’s campaign rhetoric, but cast them as continued commitment to NATO rather than a re-examination of America’s attempt to rule the world through military force, as Trump’s keynote foreign policy speech in 2016 implied.

There were a number of cynical incongruities in Pence’s oratory. For instance, he praised the Balkan countries’ contributions in the fight against ISIS and “radical Islamic terrorism” even though many fanatical ISIS fighters are Muslims from Bosnia, the Albanian-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo, and even Albania proper ‒ all ruled by US-backed regimes. In fact, in 2007, a leading US congressman (Tom Lantos, a California Democrat) championed declaring Kosovo an independent state by saying it would send a message to “jihadists of all color and hue” that the US was not anti-Muslim.

“The United States of America rejects any attempt to use force, threats, or intimidation in this region or beyond,” Pence said. “The Western Balkans have the right to decide your own future, and that is your right alone.”

This after the US has spent 25 years bombing and occupying parts of the region, overthrowing governments it disliked via “color revolutions,” and having its ambassadors act like colonial governors rather than diplomats.

Pence also praised “free and fair national elections” in Western Balkans countries, “with the participation of all political parties, and with a result that reflected the will of your people.” Yet in Albania the opposition had to be talked out of boycotting the vote they called unfair, and in Macedonia the US ambassador pushed hard for a minority coalition that would include a bloc of ethnic Albanian parties, raising the eyebrows of some in the US Senate.

Though it was NATO that occupied Kosovo in 1999 and Washington that led the efforts to declare it an independent state in 2008, Pence accused Russia of seeking “to redraw international borders by force” and working to “destabilize the region, undermine your democracies, and divide you from each other and from the rest of Europe.”

Say again? Was it Russia that declared Yugoslavia “in dissolution” in 1991, or the European Community’s Badinter Commission? Was it Moscow that booted Yugoslavia out of the UN, though it was a founding member, and insisted on Serbia and Montenegro reapplying for membership, or Washington? Was it Russia that asserted the Communist-drawn borders of Yugoslavia’s republics were sacrosanct (except when it comes to Serbia) or the US and NATO?

In peddling this false history of “Russian aggression,” Pence sounds exactly like the empire-loving Washington establishment, the very “swamp” his boss swore he would drain. It makes one wonder who was the target of this speech, the ever-obedient client regimes of the “Western Balkans” he was addressing, or the swamp back in Washington seeking a suitable replacement for the president they loathe?

But wait, there’s more. At one point, Pence quoted a line from a famous 19th-century poem by a Montenegrin prince-bishop, about how adversity reveals true heroes. This suggests that whoever wrote his speech at least made an effort to look into the country’s history. That look must have been entirely cursory, however, as the poem in question celebrated Montenegro’s Serbian identity and the struggle against the Ottoman Empire and its “Turk converts” in the early 1700s. The current regime in Montenegro is working hard to assert a separate and openly anti-Serb national identity for the country, while Turkey is a major US ally in NATO ‒ for the time being, anyway.

Last, but not least, the very phrase “Western Balkans” is an attempt to erase the region’s history, culture, traditions and diversity that Pence facetiously praised in his remarks. It is a geographical term devoid of any meaning, a blank slate for US and NATO to project their fantasies, while the actual name for the region ‒ Yugoslavia ‒ seems to have been banished to the proverbial memory hole, lest its shade disrupt the self-righteous sleep of those that helped make it a desert and called it peace.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Why is Tillerson repeating the fake news? I don't think the Trump administration was ever serious about making good with Russia. Trump too has repeated this lie. You can't get the people to support relations with Russia when you keep pushing this Russian Meddling garbage!

Tillerson to Lavrov: Russian meddling led to mistrust


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/tillerson-lavrov-russian-meddling-led-mistrust-170807034949692.html

 

[Voyageur]

Speaking of news, noticed this possible new or renewed focus on Trump with the trigger words 'conspiracy theory' - will this continue to be used by the MSN in the days to come?

This is from Canada, and there may be other examples depending on where you are from. Whatever the case, I had to laugh as they muddled through with their positions (they must be indeed worried). How weak their position is can be especially seen in what they 'dredge' up as examples:

Is Trump making conspiracy theories mainstream? (9:57)

Donald Trump's apparent acknowledgement of certain conspiracies and outright advocacy for some have given unprecedented attention to these theories and prompted fears that others may be dredged up.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/is-trump-making-conspiracy-theories-mainstream-1.4238368

http://<iframe width="854" height="...KM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[goyacobol]

Speaking of news, noticed this possible new or renewed focus on Trump with the trigger words 'conspiracy theory' - will this continue to be used by the MSN in the days to come?

This is from Canada, and there may be other examples depending on where you are from. Whatever the case, I had to laugh as they muddled through with their positions (they must be indeed worried). How weak their position is can be especially seen in what they 'dredge' up as examples:

Is Trump making conspiracy theories mainstream? (9:57)

Donald Trump's apparent acknowledgement of certain conspiracies and outright advocacy for some have given unprecedented attention to these theories and prompted fears that others may be dredged up.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/is-trump-making-conspiracy-theories-mainstream-1.4238368

http://<iframe width="854" height="...KM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

voyageur,

They put an excellent face on "credibility" but they also describe what the "common man" is now beginning to have access to which is more sources of information. The conundrum is I think the difficulty of deciding who is credible in the mix of sources out there. Alex Jones is mentioned in a casual way as being obviously a nut job. I think that perception is why Alex Jones survives on YouTube.

We are indeed in a morass of information and disinformation but at least people do have more information than probably ever before in our history of 309,000 years of control and deception. Will the truth ever shine through? I don't know but we may witness the result of this long awaited end to a great experiment.

At least I have your input and you have mine. That may be the best we can hope for these days.

 

[Voyageur]

The conundrum is I think the difficulty of deciding who is credible in the mix of sources out there to discover.

Yes, exactly, and as the "morass" of information/disinformation goes, indeed it is a staggering volume of to be exposed to, let alone objectively sift through. And as happens so often on the news, the authorities are there to help people make sense of it all, what to take in and what to discard - so, there is no personal sifting involved and people will repeat over and over what others believe, and what is best for them to believe. So, yes, it's very tricky for people in this day and age - yet it is out there, lot's of it.

Not shown on the video segment was a complete separate story that directly followed, which was a rerun related to 9/11 from Newfoundland (the many planes that landed there when the sky's were shut down on 9/11), and with this proceeding segment, it firmly places restriction on the viewer to remember it as it has always been presented and to do otherwise is to consider a conspiracy might have been involved.

 

[goyacobol]

The conundrum is I think the difficulty of deciding who is credible in the mix of sources out there to discover.

Yes, exactly, and as the "morass" of information/disinformation goes, indeed it is a staggering volume of to be exposed to, let alone objectively sift through. And as happens so often on the news, the authorities are there to help people make sense of it all, what to take in and what to discard - so, there is no personal sifting involved and people will repeat over and over what others believe, and what is best for them to believe. So, yes, it's very tricky for people in this day and age - yet it is out there, lot's of it.

Not shown on the video segment was a complete separate story that directly followed, which was a rerun related to 9/11 from Newfoundland (the many planes that landed there when the sky's were shut down on 9/11), and with this proceeding segment, it firmly places restriction on the viewer to remember it as it has always been presented and to do otherwise is to consider a conspiracy might have been involved.

Yes, and so it goes. It is only those who will scratch below the surface of this "reality" who will ever "see". We share here a common interest to do just that and that is a great blessing in my book. We seem to be at this stage only observers but that in itself is much more than I would ever have conceived it. We do make a difference I think just by seeing and observing all these events. We cannot help but have an opinion about what we see. Do we accept and approve or hope for a better world? We can only decide as individuals and hope for others to agree. We do have the right to express our thoughts. We have to "wait and see" if we make any difference but at least we may be able to "do the best" we can.

 

[Persej]

This is just unbelievable!

 

[Glenn]

This is just unbelievable!

`

Yes it is unbelievable. It seems there is no filter anymore. It seems as the PTB are speaking directly at us now.

 

[angelburst29]

I'm having a hard time understanding "the legality" of "why" Trump is forced into signing this Bill, when he disagrees with a major portion of it .... including "limiting his own Executive power's under Constitutional Law"? It's clear, Congress is working against him. Is there any kind of provision that would allow Trump to "dissolve or fire" the present Congressional body, under the aspects of "Treason" and for placing the U.S. in extreme danger?

Trump, in signing the new sanctions - allowed Congress - to also sanction him! Does that make any sense? This is getting REALLY confusing!

What if ... Trump had refused - to sign? Is it an impeachable offence?

Alexander Mercouris at The Duran wrote that Trump may be preparing ground for a Supreme Court challenge with his signing statements:

http://theduran.com/donald-trump-and-the-sanctions-law-supreme-court-challenge-coming/

Donald Trump and the sanctions law: Supreme Court challenge coming (full text and analysis of the Presidential Statement)

US President Trump has as predicted signed the new sanctions law but he has done so in a most interesting way which suggests that after a rocky couple of weeks he may be rediscovering his political touch.

I share the view that it would have been a serious mistake for President Trump to veto the new sanctions law. With overwhelming majorities voting for the sanctions law in Congress, his veto would certainly have been overridden and he would have achieved nothing by attempting to exercise his veto other than escalate the political crisis in the US in a way that would have damaged his own authority.

Nor in my opinion was the other option some have suggested – of letting the sanctions law come into effect without appending his signature – been a good one. It would have made President Trump appear weak and would have exposed to almost as much criticism as an attempt to veto the law would have done.

Instead by signing the law President Trump has been able to make a Presidential Statement which whilst it has enraged his opponents has put him in a stronger position than an attempt to exercise any other option would have done.

The Presidential Statement has clearly been carefully drafted – unquestionably by lawyers – and it is clear from Secretary of State Tillerson’s comments about the sanctions that he was involved in drafting it. Its text deserves to be set out in full.

Full text of the statement here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-statement-trump-made-while-signing-russian-sanctions-bill-2017-08-02

Note that the Presidential Statement makes no criticism of Russia, refers to no action by Russia that might justify the sanctions, and clearly distinguishes Russia from the two other countries which are being targeted with sanctions – North Korea and Iran – which President Trump clearly considers should be sanctioned.

Some of the language in the Presidential Statement also clearly hints that the Trump administration will seek to avoid over-rigorous enforcement of the measure so as not to hurt the interests of US companies and of the US’s European allies, concern for whose interests the Presidential Statement is careful to emphasis.

The single most important comments in the Presidential Statement are those which however clearly say that the sanctions law infringes on the President’s constitutional prerogative to direct the US’s foreign policy.

In doing so the Presidential Statement calls into question the wisdom of the whole measure, for example by worrying that its effect will be to “drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together”. It is actually remarkable that Donald Trump – a person wholly inexperienced in exercising public office – seems to be the only prominent public official in the US who worries about this.

The key point is however that the sanctions law unconstitutionally restricts the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy, in this case by hindering his ability to conduct negotiations with the Russians and to reach agreements with them which might involve the lifting of sanctions.

It is difficult to see these comments are anything other than preparation for a long term challenge of the measure to the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign states. However the President is saying that by seeking to tie his hands Congress is abusing this power and is acting unconstitutionally.

At this point I should say that by signing the law President Trump is not throwing away his right to challenge the constitutional basis of the law in the US Supreme Court at some future time. The President does not have the power to sign away his rights which are given him by the Constitution. If the US Supreme Court at some future time decides that the President’s constitutional powers are being infringed by the law, then it will set the offending provisions of the law aside regardless of whether or not the President signed the law.

Thanks for the feedback, Bobo08! Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been scanning the net for additional info

The first thing I came across was that Trump didn't organize an official signing but played it - low key with a sober attitude. The insertion of his statement, a grievance, legally became a part of the amendment. In a sense, "he took a legal stand - now on record" that will enable him to take his position to a higher Court. In a no-win-situation, his statement adds leverage to his Constitutional Powers as President.

Constitutional Law is way out of my league but from a logical stand point, what the Duran has suggested - makes sense. If Trump refused to sign or if he vetoed the Bill, there were consequences either way. I tried to search, if any other President had experienced the same circumstances but I didn't come across anything.

 

[angelburst29]

I'm having a hard time understanding "the legality" of "why" Trump is forced into signing this Bill, when he disagrees with a major portion of it .... including "limiting his own Executive power's under Constitutional Law"? It's clear, Congress is working against him. Is there any kind of provision that would allow Trump to "dissolve or fire" the present Congressional body, under the aspects of "Treason" and for placing the U.S. in extreme danger?

Trump, in signing the new sanctions - allowed Congress - to also sanction him! Does that make any sense? This is getting REALLY confusing!

What if ... Trump had refused - to sign? Is it an impeachable offence?

In the US there is no constitutional provision for the president to dissolve the legislature, short of declaring martial law, and without an extreme national emergency the military would not go along.

Trump can't allege that Congress has committed treason because it hasn't given aid to an enemy.

If Trump had chosen not to sign the bill it would have become law after 10 days anyway, because Congress is still in session. Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution states:

"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law."

Trump could have vetoed the bill, but it passed with such overwhelming, almost unanimous majorities in both houses of Congress that it was certain his veto would be overridden, weakening his authority.

Thanks for the additional feedback, Griffin. You sound like - you wouldn't have a problem with reading or trying to decipher - Constitutional Law?

In the US there is no constitutional provision for the president to dissolve the legislature, short of declaring martial law, ...

I searched to see if there was some kind of referendum that Trump could use - much like Venezuela but if there was once a provision for it, it's not there now .... or maybe I missed something? Found this interesting ....

Trump received detailed memo on the Deep State. He is "furious" that the writer has been fired
http://12160.info/forum/topics/trump-received-detailed-memo-on-the-deep-state-he-is-furious-that

Exclusive: Here’s the Memo That Blew Up the NSC

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/10/heres-the-memo-that-blew-up-the-nsc/

Fired White House staffer argued "deep state" attacked Trump administration because the president represents a threat to cultural Marxist memes, globalists, and bankers.

Memo at the heart of the latest blowup at the National Security Council paints a dark picture of media, academics, the “deep state,” and other enemies allegedly working to subvert U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a copy of the document obtained by Foreign Policy.

The seven-page document, which eventually landed on the president’s desk, precipitated a crisis that led to the departure of several high-level NSC officials tied to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The author of the memo, Rich Higgins, who was in the strategic planning office at the NSC, was among those recently pushed out.

The full memo, dated May 2017, is titled “POTUS & Political Warfare.” It provides a sweeping, if at times conspiratorial, view of what it describes as a multi-pronged attack on the Trump White House.

Trump is being attacked, the memo says, because he represents “an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative.” Those threatened by Trump include “‘deep state’ actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans.”

The memo is part of a broader political struggle inside the White House between current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and alt-right operatives with a nationalist worldview who believe the Army general and his crew are subverting the president’s agenda.

Though not called out by name, McMaster was among those described in the document as working against Trump, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the memo and the events. Higgins, the author, is widely regarded as a Flynn loyalist who dislikes McMaster and his team.

“It was about H.R. McMaster,” the source said. “So, when he starts reading it, he knows it’s him and he fires [Higgins].”

The story of the memo’s strange journey through the White House captures the zeitgeist of what has become the tragicomedy of the current White House: a son trying to please his father, an isolated general on a mission to find a leaker, a right-wing blogger with a window into the nation’s security apparatus, and a president whose closest confidante is a TV personality.

The result is an even wider rift between the president and his national security advisor, marking what may be the beginning of the end of the general’s tenure, and a radical shift of power on the NSC.

The controversy over the memo has its origins in a hunt for staffers believed to be providing information to right-wing blogger Mike Cernovich, who seemed to have uncanny insight into the inner workings of the NSC. Cernovich in the past few months has been conducting a wide-ranging campaign against the national security advisor.

McMaster was just very, very obsessed with this, with Cernovich,” a senior administration official told FP. “He had become this incredible specter.”

In July, the memo was discovered in Higgins’s email during what two sources described to Foreign Policy as a “routine security” audit of NSC staffers’ communications. Another source, however, characterized it as a McCarthy-type leak investigation targeting staffers suspected of communicating with Cernovich.

Higgins, who had worked on the Trump campaign and transition before coming to the NSC, drafted the memo in late May and then circulated the memo to friends from the transition, a number of whom are now in the White House.

After the memo was discovered, McMaster’s deputy, Ricky Waddell, summoned Higgins, who was told he could resign — or be fired, and risk losing his security clearance, according to two sources.

In his second meeting with reporters at his golf complex in New Jersey, US President Donald Trump said "I want to thank" Russian President Vladimir Putin for ousting hundreds of US embassy employees "because we're trying to cut down our payroll," the press pool reported.

Trump Thanks Putin For Kicking US Embassy Staff Out of Moscow
https://sputniknews.com/news/201708101056363621-trump-thanks-putin-diplomats-moscow/

The business-savvy president said the move had the benefit of "trimming payroll" though many have received the comments in jest. Trump has so far been quiet on the expulsion of US workers from Russia.

I greatly appreciate the fact that we've been able to cut our payroll of the United States," Trump said, adding "we're going to save a lot of money… there's no real reason for them to go back."

"I'm very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll," the forty-fifth president said.

Following the latest sanctions targeting Russia, North Korea, and Iran, Moscow moved to reduce the number of US diplomatic personnel by 755 people — bringing parity to the size of diplomatic staffs in each country.

During a briefing with reporters on Thursday, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said "the expulsions of our US diplomats and other citizens who are working over there at our embassy, we consider that to be a regrettable step."

"If it were not for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and the closure of the Russian properties in the US by the previous administration, as well as a sanctions act passed by the current administration, we would not have taken these measures. It was not our decision to exchange barbs," the Russian Embassy in Washington said Thursday.

During the recent ASEAN Regional Forum in Manila Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had a meeting where the duo "agreed that they should continue to find places of agreement where our two nations can work together," the US State Department said Thursday. "One of the places where we can work together is in southwest Syria in a ceasefire… that may not seem like a lot to some folks around here" in Washington, "but it's an area in which we can work together, try to build trust, and try to find areas of mutual cooperation."

 

[Laura]

Came across this interesting take on the state of affairs today:

_https://www.halseynews.com/2017/08/10/crunch-time-deep-state-vs-donald-trump/

Crunch-Time for The Deep State vs. Donald Trump
Tom Lugono

I’ve made few bones about how disappointed I’ve been with Donald Trump in recent weeks over his handling of major foreign policy issues. It’s not like I don’t realize what is being done to him or how hard his political opponents are pushing for his removal from office.

I do, fully.

In fact, from the beginning I wanted Trump to go on offense. Playing nice with vipers only gets you bit. And, I feel now that Trump went into the White House a little naïve about how fully arrayed against him the establishment in “Mordor-on-the-Potomac” was. (H/T Lew Rockwell)

Now, however, it’s clear that he does and the question on everyone’s mind is whether he has enough wiggle room to extricate himself from the noose they are dropping around his neck.

I’m not here to tell you that I think he does.

What I am here to tell you is that time is definitely running out on Trump’s most vocal opponents and Trump himself.

Their strategy to impeach him over the thinnest of contacts with Russia both during and after the campaign is failing badly. We now have that bastion of rationality and deep thinking, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Idiocracy) saying that she’s running on an “Impeach Trump” platform.

Here’s the gig, if Waters is anything like the previous black, female Democratic Rockstar, Corrinne Brown, then she’s this vocal because of what is likely to come out about her rather than Trump.

But, I’m just speculating. She could just be stupid.

But, why I say that time is running out is that the American people are getting fed up with all of this. Trump’s swing supporters want results which the Democrats and most of the GOP refuse to give him. And failing that, they want him to lead rather than complain about the situation.

Tweet-storms are fun, but eventually they just look like warmed-over Obama blather.

Remember, we voted for Trump to rid ourselves of Obama’s memory, not to have Trump remind us of him all the time.

On the other hand, Special Investigator Robert Mueller’s clock is running out as well. He’s got nothing and knows it. A grand breakdown of a CNN article by Alexander Mercouris yesterday lays out in stunning detail just how little Mueller actually has and how nervous the partisan hacks he’s assembled are becoming about being counter-sued for harassment after this whole farrago is over.

In other words, after a year of investigation involving – according to some reports – 3,000 investigators and 14 prosecutors (!) and backed by the combined weight of the US’s massive intelligence community – no evidence of illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians has come to light, and the investigators are giving up hope of ever finding any.

Unsurprisingly some of them are now so worried about the retribution they may one day face because of the relentless way they have conducted an inquiry into literally nothing that CNN reports by them taking out insurance to protect themselves (emphasis mine)

So, Mad Maxine can rant on television all she wants but there is no ‘there there’ when it comes to Trump’s Russia ties. If there were Mueller’s Padawan-learner Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wouldn’t be saying “indictments are not forthcoming” and the Justice Department “doesn’t engage in fishing expeditions” publicly.

He’d be virtue signaling that there’s more to this situation then is apparent.

All Trump has to do is run out the clock on Mueller without looking like he’s obstructing the investigation. In that respect, Trump’s doing just fine.

But, at the same time it is imperative that he go on the offence here. He needs to energize his soft support among the centrist-libertarians who want either the corruption cleaned up or the foreign policy to change.

So far, we haven’t seen much of that. It looks like he’s surrounded by vipers ready to strike at a moment’s notice. I know looks can be deceiving but I also tend towards using Occam’s Razor.

While Mueller is out there wasting taxpayer money Trump is adrift. He can play around the edges of reform without actually reforming anything in a substantive way. It’s those things that are sops to his loyal fan base, the shills and the uncritical excusers, to keep them from revolting while the swamp slowly drains the color from his face.

At that point, even impeachment would be a kindness. And he’ll be a prisoner in a house he let others build around him.

 

[Laura]

An interesting guy on Twitter and his latest video where he points out that Trump is definitely failing, so what to do?

https://twitter.com/AngeloJohnGage/status/896144134452293632

 

[Laura]

Another interesting databit. Seems that Manafort was being raided by the FBI at exactly the same time that Trump sent out his Tweet about the ban on Trannies in the military. Here's a tweet with the images captured:

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/895309948732702721

The comments below the Tweet are interesting too.

I just think it is TOO much to be coincidence.

 

[aragorn]

Another interesting databit. Seems that Manafort was being raided by the FBI at exactly the same time that Trump sent out his Tweet about the ban on Trannies in the military. Here's a tweet with the images captured:

https://twitter.com/AngeloJohnGage/status/896144134452293632

The comments below the Tweet are interesting too.

I just think it is TOO much to be coincidence.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you copy-pasted by accident the same twitter link as in your previous post.