« Open Thread - 24 October 2017 | Main | The Bonnie and Clyde of US politics - by Publius Tacitus »

24 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Lol. Forgive but the facebook shakedown suggested russian nationals paid for $100k of peripherally related clickbait. And you call that election interference?


You mentioned in comments to a prior post your thought we were in a Bloody Kansas phase. Where are we now?

On a different train of thought (but not really), I've been watching on my way to work a Halloween display coming together on a prominent intersection in my liberal DC suburb. It started about a month ago with a stage-like representation of an old apartment with a table topped by a bowl with small bones in it. The wall has a painting of the death of Marat. There's a skeleton around. Since I don't wear my glasses on my commute, there has now appeared (to my eyes) a guillotine off the side. This week, a large French flag is flying.

Given our present politics, the display can be ranked a success...the thing creeps me out.

SR Wood

I think we have to wait until the fat lady sings, Mueller's report, on what is true and what is not.

Larry Kart

Evidence to come or not to come -- and that's the whole ball game right there, no? -- it seems to me to amount to this:

Some Republicans (Jeb?) ordered up a mess of opposition research that revealed a bunch of promising leads about Trump and the Trump campaign's ties to Russia and that Russia was interfering in the American election. When that opposition research (or if you prefer, snooping) ceased to be politically useful, they abandoned it. The Democrats picked it up. And that's a scandal?


That process started even before the election.

Yes, quite. I'd say about the time Lloyd Benten left the Clinton Treasury. Bentsen certainly wasn't spotless, but the shamelessness Ruben brought to the policy/money nexus was of a whole new order. GHW Bush was the last President to enforce the law against white collar criminals.

blue peacock

The election is over.

Post-election however, there is a significant campaign to delegitimize a duly elected POTUS. The reason why some of us are very interested in this topic is because of the evidence of collusion between the key levers of power in this campaign - the political establishment, leadership of the intelligence agencies, foreign interests including the UK intelligence agency and the megaphone of the MSM.

iowa steve

"the people who won the election for DJT in the midwest seem unlikely to be social media types"

No, in my experience here in the upper Midwest, everyone and their grandma uses social media and walks around with their faces glued to smartphones. Not that anyone who I'm aware of noticed any so-called Russian influenced ads which would have been lost in the bombardment of nonstop media buys on behalf of the two major parties in any case.

iowa steve

If nothing else, the US media narrative has established Putin as an all-powerful wizard capable of controlling anything he wishes.

different clue


It can't, and it won't. The Pink Kitty Cap Brigades are all " Jonestown for Clinton". That won't ever change.

What it can do, if truthfully and factually repeated and extended-upon long enough and loud enough and often enough . . . is to get other people to begin to realize just what a Jonestown Cult the Clinton supporters truly are. That might be a first step towards discrediting their public presence and beginning to break their influence on politics and public thinking.

different clue


Qualified limited hangout? Pre-emptive self-innoculation against worse being reported elsewhere?

different clue


If it plays out to Clinton's legal detriment, perhaps she will decide that " I ain't nobody's grandmother" and that " If I'm going down, youse is all going down with me."


One possibility is that one of their reporters told the WaPo that he or she would get it published elsewhere if they did not print it. This would then be the paper avoiding embarrassment and or trying to prevent the story from being even more of a bombshell. This is how
James Risen got his NSA spying story published in the NY times back in 2005. The times didn't want to publish the story, but relented when
it became clear that Risen would be coming out with a book which included the story.


It appears that the only investigation with a chance of finding some "red meat" involves HRC and the uranium.

FB Ali

Col Lang,

I read that the coup has already been successfully carried out. By the Generals. All that remains is for the current occupant of the White House to be switched.


If I'm going down, youse is all going down with me."

dc, there is no chance to take Clinton down. Neither is there any chance for some type of domino effect. Reality check. What would it mean?

At one point during the public campaign debates, it felt to me, without the audience and superficial party difference they could have shaken hands. But he scored a point in the public arena, from my rather limited grasp.

I doubt Trump can be taken down either. Remind me or awake me from sleep when either of the two things happens.

Larry Kart

I agree about the attempted soft coup. But am I wrong in thinking that there's a certain division in your thinking?

On the one hand, you feel that any such soft coup would have dire political and social consequences in general and specifically would lead to a violent uprising on the part of some of DJT's supporters plus the somewhat divergent Bannon group and those who are good deal more wild and wooly (and well-armed) to boot)? On the other hand, when it comes to the issues of DJT's foreign policy, his character and emotional stabliity, etc., and the possibility that he will lead us into war or worse in a tweet-storm manner, I seem to recall any number of posts by you that have expressed considerable alarm. If so, and if Mattis, McMaster, et al. cannot restrain DJT if and when that time comes, are we not then between the proverbial rock and hard place?


FB Ali

Not really true. DJT is ignorant of the larger world but he is as mean as a snake in meetings and they all know that they could be removed at any time. pl


Larry Kart

Yes, I think a soft coup success among the Dems/some Republicans and media would lead to de-stabilization of the US, something which would be a disaster. Yes, Trump is an ignoramus in international affairs. We each must decide what is most important. pl

blue peacock


You ought to carefully read the post by Publius Tacitus on the topic of the Steele dossier. Contrary to your assertion the information in the dossier is primarily a smear masquerading as "oppo research".

Note also that the Democrat law firm that hired Fusion GPS to create this dossier of fake information also hired Crowdstrike to investigate the alleged DNC email hack.

Larry Kart

Absent an opportunity to objectively examine a bunch of "oppo research" from campaigns of the recent and not so recent past (and when and how would one get that opportunity?), I would assume that much of that research could be described as a smear That much of it would/could be so characterized doesn't prove that it's nothing but smears. Further, to perhaps state the obvious, those who are in the "oppo research" business aim to titillatel/ead on their clients up to a point and are thus not likely to be the most scrupulous customers around.

BTW, in a perhaps somewhat related vein, I've been reading the late Rear Admiral Edwin Layton's "'And I was There": Pearl Harbor and Midway -- Breaking the Secrets." Layton was Adm. Kimmel's intelligence chief, and later Adm. Nimitiz's intelligence chief for the rest of the war, most famously and crucially at Midway. Layton makes it clear that Kimmel and Gen. Short were consistently not given abundant "Magic" intelligence info (e.g. intercepted Japanese diplomatic cables) that was in the hands of key Navy and Army figures in Washington, this done so most notably at the orders of Adm. Richmond Kelly Turner, then head of the Navy's Office of War Plans. That info undoubtedly would have led Kimmel and Short to take steps that would have wholly averted Pearl Harbor or significantly lessened the impact of the Japanese attack (e.g. almost all the ships anchored at Pearl could have been safely well at sea within an hour or two of the order to depart). Instead, Kimmel and Short not only were not given that info but also were specifically told that the defensive steps they were contemplating should not be taken because in the current delicate diplomatic context they would be "provocative."

More disturbing perhaps, and what specifically brought this book to mind, was its account of the coverup over the years of what was and was not done about alerting Kimmel and Short and, sad to say, the key role that no less a figure than Gen. Marshall played in agreeing that this crucial intelligence info should not be relayed to the commanders in the field, and, further, denying in the course of investigations that he knew it was not relayed or even claiming that he (Marshall) had never seen it.

Yes, this was all mixed up in FDR's attempt to make sure that Japan fired the first shot so that the war would have congressional and public support. Layton stops short of making the usual conspiratorial claims there; no one, including FDR, he says, knew that Pearl was the target, though those in command at Pearl, given the info they should have had but were denied through 1941 for bureaucratic power-play/pissing contest reasons (Kelly Turner the Byzantine chief culprit there, CNO Adm. Stark, Kelly Turner's weak and lazy ostensible boss. also bears much responsibility), would again have taken quite different measures prior to the attack. Rather the extensive military-political discussions in the White House, in which Marshall was a key participant, along with Stimson, Stark, et al., were about when the hoped-for Japanese "first shot" would be fired. Kelly Turner, for one, was sure that it would be a Japanese assault on Russia, while the consensus was it would be an attack on the Philippines, which is why almost all of Pearl's B-17s recently had been flown to MacArthur in the Philippines, only to be destroyed on the ground.

I mention all of this because if significant dereliction of duty and even outright lying could have occurred in matters as consequential as the above (i.e. the run up to Pearl, the subsequent scapegoating of Kimmel and Short, and the coverup that followed) -- this involving figures as upright and distinguished as Gen. Marshall -- the idea that political campaign oppo research could contain smears and not the unvarnished truth does not surprise me.


I don't understand why the ad hominem is necessary here. Although, I do observe that in the USA we live in coarse, anti-PC times.


Was Nixon resigning a soft coup?

It seems the Constitution provides for a term coming to a premature conclusion. But, I do not see the votes there (in congress or cabinet,) to realize this removal under the current circumstances. I doubt future circumstances will shape up toward this end.

On the other hand, were the POTUS to be hounded or witch hunted to the point of his resigning, there might be a 'kinetic' reaction among the faithful, but they are currently, apparently, a minority. Many Americans would be happy to see the legitimately elected President Trump leave voluntarily.

(I note that both senses, 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact,' and 'extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,' can be called to duty in an instant. Where the military stands is unknown to me, except for the oath part.)


Dr. Puck

It is not a question of constitutionality. It is a question of wisdom much like the question of whether or not religious displays should be allowed to public property. pl

Eric Newhill

Dr. Puck,
And who would replace the Trump admin? A foreign affairs genius like Hillary Clinton? Another Bush? How is that better?

I would say that at this point it appears that Trump is among the least corrupt elected people in DC. That is just one problem with your desired coup. You would replace Trump with corrupt war mongers. For another, you would have damaged, probably permanently, our civic structures just so corrupt people can continue to feed at the trough.

Nixon got caught in a crime and cover-up. The people understood that. What crime has Trump committed? Yes, the people you want in office tried to concoct a crime and that effort is now falling apart - backfiring - they themselves having a committed a crime or two, apparently. How can you be so blind to the differences between Trump and Nixon?

Many Americans would not be happy to see Trump leave. That crowd laughs at your consternation. Get used to it. It's going to get a lot worse for the anti-Trumpers. And laughter is better for you than the reaction should the Borg have succeeded in it's dastardly plans.



No, the willingness of the Clintons to sell anything not anchored in concrete is quite real. really into the Iranian threat to Israel eh? pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad