Figuring out what’s happening in Washington – under the surface, with the Deep State factions – is a guessing game. Highly uncertain. Of course I don’t “know anything”, in the sense of having sources. I read the tea leaves as best I can, and I guess.
When President Trump unexpectedly did a huge Saudi arms deal, I had a feeling that former FBI Director Comey’s testimony would then turn out as a net win for Trump. What’s the connection? Hard to explain. I’m going to say some stuff now which could easily be crap; feel free to shoot it down in the comments, or to add your own ideas.
Trump started his presidential campaign as a populist outsider, offering a wild-eyed version of common sense on immigration, trade, peace (i.e., not doing new wars – except to smash ISIS), etc.
Whereas Hillary was very much the candidate of the Establishment, with all its shenanigans and baloney. Especially she was the candidate of Big Banking (Goldman-Sachs, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild), the Deep State (the enduring bureaucrats at State, Defense, DOJ, and the so-called intelligence agencies), and Saudi Arabia.
At some point, I think, Trump peeled off *some* Deep State faction from Hillary. Otherwise, he would have lost. (No, I’m not sure what I’m alleging there. I don’t know how all the machinery works. I just have a gut feeling that, if you have 95% of the Establishment against you instead of only 75%, you will lose the election. Somehow.)
Which faction? Trump gave a hint in his inaugural address, when he repeatedly used the phrase “America First”. He got the support of certain people – perhaps mainly in the military/Pentagon? – who felt that it was time for the U.S. to retrench. People who felt that the U.S. had gotten too aggressive in starting wars (Obama’s Libya and Syria wars), in encroaching on Russia (Obama’s Ukraine coup / civil war), in signing up for costly globalist deals (the TPP and the Paris agreement), etc.
I think that because, around late summer 2016, there was a shift in Trump’s rhetoric away from defense spending cuts. He became pro-Pentagon. Not in a “let’s have more wars” way, but rather, in a “I will look out for you guys” way. (Remember, the military isn’t necessarily pro-war; just pro-defense spending.)
Anyway, he won in November. But still, Trump didn’t have enough Establishment support to govern – that is, to survive in office. The other 75% was enraged by Hillary’s loss and was not going to let Trump survive. Hence, the campaign of leaks and evidence-free innuendo to destroy him.
Until recently. In February and March, Trump appointed a bunch of Goldman-Sachs people to Treasury positions. In April, he bombed Syria. In May, he completed the huge Saudi arms deal. The latter *could* be a sign that the Saudis, and Saudi-oriented U.S. politicians (such as the Bushes), now hate Trump less than before – and will let him survive his four-year term.
I said to myself “If all that is true, then it won’t matter that Comey is aligned with the Clintons. Deep State and Senate Republicans will be yanking Comey’s leash now. They will question him in such a manner that Comey looks bad. Trump survives this.”
I didn’t want to make a big public prediction of it, because I wasn’t very sure. But so it has come to be. Even Trump-hating Senators, like Marco “Junior McCain” Rubio, went out of their way to help Comey fall on the point of his sword. Comey is now in jeopardy for his manipulative (and probably illegal) leaking, and Trump benefits.
My next semi-predictions (just guesses, just seeing if my speculations are true or not):
- The Clintons are done.
Many observe that the Saudis, Clintons and Bushes have been aligned for decades. *If* Trump has induced the Saudis and the Bushes to be neutral toward him (rather than hostile), the Clintons should now find themselves out in the cold. Within 3-4 months, CNN should get less crazy on the anti-Trump, and Hillary should be dead (as a political force – wink).
- Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation of Trumprussia will turn up nothing.
Trumprussia was always a witch hunt, meant to manufacture Trump administration crimes where none existed. Mueller is said to be a political
sleazeballoperator like Comey; but more aligned with the Bushes. *If* I’m correct in guessing that the Bushes, Saudis and Trump have compromised, Mueller would then be on a short leash. - We will still get some decent policy from Trump – appointing conservative judges, scaling back regulations, limited tax reform, limited Obamacare reform, partial cleanup of the DOJ and Federal law enforcement, pushing back on bad trade or environmental agreements, some border enforcement, a little bit of budget sanity – but not a revolution. Because my main point is that he’s making some compromises with The Swamp. Still better than what we would have gotten from Hillary, the Swamp Queen.
We shall see.
“Still better than what we would have gotten from Hillary, the Swamp Queen.”
Or, for that matter, any one of the 20-odd other people who applied for the job. Any of them.
Trump gained the support of the armed-faction and their civilian supporters in the National Security Deep State to win the election, but not the diplomatic, intelligence nor security factions, hence the friction and leaks. In part I would fault Trump’s being slow off the mark in not only appointing Cabinet-members, but also the Asst. Sects. and Deputies. When you execute a hostile takeover in business, you have to grab the beast by the throat right away.
Ted – Yeah, but it’s Congress who has moved super slowly on Trump’s appointees. Also, just before leaving office, Obama re-classified thousands of (formerly) political appointees as Civil Service, so that Trump *can’t* replace them.
This situation will unwind slowly. Again, I think that Establishment Republicans (at least) have accepted that Trump isn’t going anywhere and it’s OK to get along with him. Of course I could be wrong.
The military industrial complex is a YUUGE part of the swamp. That being said, the Saudis were looking to buy and if our defense contractors get the deal, so much the better. I am not fond of the Saudi government ( the saner members of the royal family) but any alternative that appears over there always seems to be much worse. At least he pressured the Arab states the lean on Quatar , their double dealing makes the Saudis look like saints.
Hi ILoveCapitalism,
I don’t think Comey’s testimony will be a “net” win for Trump. Being called a liar by the ex-Head of the FBI and having no one in your own party defend you in the senate hearing on that claim is devastating.
The whole “hope” thing that conservatives are clinging to like a life raft is embarrassing. Clear the room, then ask that question–seriously, ILoveCapitalism Capitalism? I guess it really does depend on what the meaning of “is” is…
And just as the left is cooking up its own conspiracy theories, the right goes ahead and does the same. All on the basis that President Trump is playing n-demiensional chess and is three steps ahead of the opposition. Haven’t seen evidence of that yet, but the day is coming, you just know it.
The one thing I know with certainty in all this ILoveCapitalism is that if this was happening with a Democratic President (not even Obama), then the regular conservative commenters on this website would not be defending that President, but would be calling for his or her head given all the “evidence” that they have seen to date.
We watched two different hearings. As I said in the post:
If you can’t see that, I guess I can’t help you. Good luck! (And maybe remember this exchange in the future, when things turn out very differently than you expected.)
“If you can’t see that, I guess I can’t help you. Good luck! (And maybe remember this exchange in the future, when things turn out very differently than you expected.)”
No worries–the deck is pretty much stacked in the Republican favor–Democratic Reps don’t have subpoena power.
As for Rubio, etc–feel free to show me where they pushed back against Comey’s “liar” charge. I did not see that. I saw a man who couldn’t believe what had just happened: “I was a bit stunned, and didn’t have the presence of mind…. I don’t know whether, even if I had the presence of mind, I would have said to the president, “Sir, that’s wrong.” I don’t know whether I would have…. What came to my mind is, be careful what you say.” Maybe you would have acted differently. Why not report it afterwards–who to? And how would it be perceived? I am glad that you would have had the presence of mind to step up and do the right thing–and that would be what in this circumstance, ILoveCapitalism?
And as for the Trump being not investigated claim:
“RUBIO: And just to be clear, for you to make a public statement that he was not under investigation would not have been illegal, but you felt it made no sense because it could potentially create a duty to correct, if circumstances changed?
COMEY: Yes, sir.”
Rubio is NO friend to President Trump–not if he keeps reminding everyone that even if the President is not under investigation now, he could be in the future!
Two points:
1. If Trump is being Diplomatic with the Deep State, I hope it is diplomacy in the sense of saying “Nice Doggy” while you look around for a rock to bash its skull in.
2. If we’re a clickbait site, does that mean I can make more listcicles? Because I just love making listcicles.
Comey is appearing both worse and better than expected for various reasons. And as much as I detest the Clintons and delight in her second quest for the presidency ending in rather embarrassing fashion (much like her first), I hope the Clintons remain power brokers as well as front-and-center in the Democratic Party; such weak leadership keeps the party weak and demoralized and stifles new talent. This is why I support Nancy Pelosi.
Jeff, from what I know you’re essentially correct. However; it’s too soon to predict as per your semi-predictions #3.
I would add detail from what can be known from a public perspective that takes everything into account. Despite what people think, elections are what they are; a wild card. Donald Trump won for reasons which have been discussed ad nauseam. However; you’re basically speaking about what is known commonly as a power base. Now-president Trump has three very powerful blocs. His loyal voters/supporters who do not waiver, as if life depended on it (which it really does). The Pentagon (also known as “the military” or “the military industrial complex” a cliche that’s been vomited out so much by knowitalls that it’s hardened to a point you could make bread out of it). The FBI rank & file (which agency is under the purview of the Executive Branch but not always, necessarily loyal to a president. These allow him to remain in office & keep us all safe since his removal would mean absolute chaos, not kidding.
The Saudi deal isn’t the only allowance he’s made, approving the sale of whatever to whoever. But it’s significant. One might imagine, if one was inclined to do so, that a barrage of Tomahawks at Syria was the celebratory fireworks signaling America’s return as the active sole superpower on the planet. Make no mistake about it, the US Military is now back on the board.
As far as what The Donald will do? The Wall is already under constructions, essentially. The big-deal-about-it will start at the end of the summer, per Homeland Security. The Dems don’t have a choice, the Establishment collaborators don’t have a choice. A president can indeed play hardball with cash if necessary. Healthcare? If the Dems don’t get on board there is a default that the President’s supporters will require. Plain Repeal. Judges are already being appointed. I’m not sure what’s going to happen with tax reform. Deportations are escalating.
There will be nuances & special side dishes inserted between these things. Guaranteed. I’ve not seen a president in my lifetime, even Reagan, willing to use raw power like Trump; being someone born towards the end of Eisenhower’s tenure.
All I’m doing here is extrapolating on someone we’ve known for decades & using rational logic to point at the facts. Like your tea leaves. The only difference being that I’m willing to throw the dice harder against the edge of the table & I’ve known people like Trump before. The only gamble? Like any good owner I make sure the horse has the stamina & breeding & I take him out before he racks up losses for everyone. I see more stamina & wherewithal in Trump than there ever was with Reagan. After all, The Donald is a billionaire & has people to keep him healthy & fed.
I really wish that Pres. Trump would stop tweeting. …Or at least restrict himself to topics of policy advocacy — versus his tendency to feud and vendetta. Attacking Comey or the Mayor of London is counterproductive, and tweeting about Russia just fuels the MSM shill-machine.
It doesn’t prove you’re the smartest person in the room…
“Do or do not, there is no tweet.“
Ted , I agree with you. It isn’t that he Tweets , it’s what he Tweets about. If he would Tweet about the accomplishments of his administration ( which the news media will never tell) it would be a positive. Butt nooo he has to go on about Comey et al.:-(
Yeah, Ted and Matthew, I am with you. Why aren’t any of his advisors telling him to back off of certain topics? Surely Ivanka and her husband could have some sway in this department, no?
Now that Mrs. Trump and Barron are at the White House full-time, perhaps he’ll feel less “restless”, at-loose-ends and out-of-sorts.
Like the Fireside Chats, TrumpTweets should be reserved for good news, extending unexpected kudos, and “contact your Congresscritter”-messages.
So he was called a liar by a person who proved in his testimony that he himself was a vindictive liar not above breaking the law for petty personal reasons?
Maybe someone can bribe Barron to sneak into the First Bedroom and grab his phone before he wakes up each morning. 😉
I know what you guys mean – I wrote a post criticizing his tweets.
Just to play devil’s advocate…His tweets do change things in his favor sometimes.
– The Obama “tapped my wires” tweet – flushed out the Susan Rice “unmasking” story and put focus on it.
– The “Comey better hope there are no tapes” tweet – forced Comey and some Democrats to realize their allegations are no laughing matter and they had better trim them back, offer evidence, etc.
I’ve been reading Trump’s book from 1987. It’s amazing how it lays out everything we’re seeing. For example – he says you have to deliver the goods (be real with people), but then again, you have to use hyperbole/exaggeration to move people or get them on board. Be good to those who are good to you, punish those who treat you unfairly. Be willing to say wild things, to change the conversation. It’s all there.
Exactly. My overall impression of Comey during his recent testimony was, “Self-important, whiny bitch who was just fired. Desperate to soothe himself by dishing his former boss, but doesn’t really have much.”
Just remind me again… what laws did Comey break again? And what lies did he speak?
Sure.
1. Comey’s famous “memo” was/is a government document that he passed around in the FBI; not a private or personal diary. Even if it was not a formal 302 and/or not classified, Comey still would have needed President Trump’s authorization to share it with the public or media. At a minimum, Comey violated his NDAs or employment agreement.
Also, he took the document out of the office after being fired – in other words, he may have broken laws about theft. Reality Winner is in jail for something comparable (not identical, but roughly comparable) as we speak.
2. Comey claimed that he leaked it in response to the President’s tweet of May 12. This is a provable falsehood, as The New York Times’ very first article based on the memo was published May 11. (Then another on May 16, which Comey and Democrats pretend was the first.)
That’s just off the top of my head. And “at a minimum”. For now, I’m skipping over
– the question of whether Comey’s memo itself might be a pack of lies, to begin with
– the question of whether Comey might have been a source for other, significant, illegal leaks
– falsehoods in Comey’s previous appearances before Congress. (There were some. I’m just not so obsessive that I can recall them quickly.)
I see Trump’s tweets as distractive displays that keep the MSM distracted from what Trump is really doing. It has been less then 6 months since Trump was sworn into office and already he has been doing the near impossible while trailing poisoned treats for the MSM to gooble up until they die/explode.
1.Supreme court justice (check)
2.Obamacare challenged and MSM confirming gleefully that Trump has not been able to touch it as it implodes
3. Multiple conservative judges put forward
4. Paris deal toast
5. Coal being mined
6. Pipeline drama finished
7. Nato told to pay up
8. Syria bombed over chemical attacks
9. DNC/MSM spewing hate and craziness while exposing their true selves
Obama was still just smelling his own farts and polishing his nobel peace prize about now. Oh and giving his buddies $
At the very, very least, Comey’s leaking (the leaking is absolute) is unethical.
I find Lib circular arguments to be offensive. Willful ignorance to freely available information for whatever reason is just a tactic of the desperate.
I also find Lib, Prog, Dem & Socialist amnesia to this Comey thing to be offensive. A quick review of their stance just last summer over Comey is necessary. Though we all know faced with the facts is hardly a guarantee to shut their petty traps.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/what-is-the-hatch-act/index.html
Comey has been a Petticoat Junction for over a year yet the Democrat Media & their underlings the Democrats still give him validity? He was canned for a reason. He’s out of control, juvenile & a problem for everyone.
“Comey still would have needed President Trump’s authorization to share it with the public or media. At a minimum, Comey violated his NDAs or employment agreement.”
So, President Trump doesn’t have to invoke executive privilege in order to make that happen? I find it hard to believe that it is illegal as is, since Comey hasn’t been arrested. So what is that about? I can’t see Comey making that kind of a rookie mistake like that, can you? And what NDA? I wonder what Comey is allowed to do as a private citizen as opposed to be FBI Director–especially if the document is a memo record of his own recollections of the meeting. Why wouldn’t he have a personal copy for himself? Just found this, so interested in your view…
The May 12th claim–interesting–I couldn’t find the 12th NYTimes article. Could you give me the link. I have the 16th May article. Wikipedia talks about the 16th article, not the 12th…