H2O ManH2O Man's Journal
I remember sitting down to Christmas dinner eighteen years ago in a communal house in Portland, Oregon with about twelve others my own age, all of whom had no place they wished to go home to. This house was my first discovery of harmony and community with fellow beings. This has been the experience of hundreds of thousands of men and women all over America since the end of WW2. Hence the talk about the growth of a 'new society.'
Gary Snyder; Earth House Hold New Directions Publishing; 1968
I think about this quite a bit during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season. This year, I've been talking to several good friends who, for a variety of reasons, are experiencing difficult times. In some instances, it is related to interactions (or none) with family members. Others have told me about problems with old friends and neighbors. Sometimes I think that the holiday season is the most difficult for good people.
Earlier today I was remembering a Thanksgiving some thirty years ago. I was a single father with custody of my two young sons, but they were spending Thanksgiving day with their mother. I hadn't thought it would be different than any other day I didn't have the boys. I had thought that I'd find plenty to do. But on that day, I couldn't.
I remember listening to Jimi Hendrix's song, Burning of the Midnight Lamp, especially the haunting lyrics, All my loneliness, I have felt today; it's a little more than enough to make a man throw himself away. Looking back, of course, I don't feel sorry for myself. But I remember that empty feeling, and of thinking about Paul McCartney's lines about all the lonely people.
On a more chipper note, years later my sons hosted Thanksgiving, with their mother and her new husband, their sisters, and I, and we had a great time. But that would be their mother's last Thanksgiving, as she died seven months later. Although he doesn't mention it, I know that both Thanksgiving and Christmas are hard for my sons. The older will be preparing our Thanksgiving meal here, and his brother and his girlfriend will join us. (Her daughters will be at their father's, and her mother hates the holidays and doesn't want to see anyone.)
When I was a kid, the maternal side of the extended family all gathered at my grandparents for a feast on both Thanksgiving and Christmas. Those are some of the very few times in my childhood that I can look back upon with some happiness. But those days are long gone, and while three of my four siblings live but a few miles away, we do not communicate.
I used to enjoy talking to my friend Rubin Carter on Thanksgiving especially in the years that Marvin Hagler flew in to Canada from Italy to spend the holiday with the Hurricane. Rubin had an interesting take on the curious systems that are known as family of origin. I can hear his words now: You are born into the exact circumstances that you must overcome in life.
I like Gary Snyder's approach. If you don't have family and friends to hang with today, the internet provides a form of community that we couldn't have dreamed of when I was young. If you are having a good holiday, please think of those who might be alone even those who are alone in a crowd. Take the time to reach out. And one last thing to keep in mind this holiday season: Trump is being impeached!
The RNC has identified Rep. Anthony Brindisi, of NYS's 22nd congressional district, as one of the top-ten vulnerable Democrats in 2020. Over the weekend, Steve Bannon spoke on the news about targeting Rep. Brindisi. And currently, in our region, there are frequent television commercials telling people to call Brindisi's office to tell him to vote against impeaching Donald Trump.act, to inflate the numbers of anti-impeachment calls, they are urging people outside of our district to call.
The 2020 contest looks to be a rematch between Rep. Brindisi and Claudia Tenney. You may recall Tenney as a rabid supporter of Trump. In 2018, numerous area republican leaders refused to endorse her, in part because she had done nothing in Washington to help local communities. People were also disgusted with her paranoid attacks on Anthony's Italian-American heritage, claiming he was with the mafia and that she and her campaign workers' safety was at grave risk.
As proof, she noted that automobiles her staff didn't recognize drove by her Utica campaign headquarters. Yikes! I'm sure that she and her staff could identify every vehicle that had the right to travel upon the city's streets. Or maybe it was something else ..perhaps projection?
Along with some family members, I attended a rally in Utica to protest when Donald Trump came to town to endorse Tenney. We have since learned that Trump had brought an old friend with him, to help support Tenney's campaign. That friend's name is Lev Parnas, the now-indicted buddy of Rudy Giuliani. Small world.
I will be working on a few campaigns in 2020. And I've already been putting in time at the grass roots' level on Anthony's campaign. Because our district has a surprisingly high number of independent voters, I focus quite a bit on outreach to them. I also will be speaking with the students at the area's colleges and universities. In fact, I've set aside time to communicate today with some faculty and student leaders about the need to support Anthony, including calling his office to express support for impeaching Trump.
I have only known Anthony Brindisi for a few years. However, we have a couple of friends from the Utica area in common one is an attorney I've know for over 40 years who told me that they have the highest opinion of him. During the 2018 campaign, I got to hang out with him and get to know him and his family. They are wonderful people. And, of course, I've remained in close contact with his DC office, local offices, and now his re-election campaign staff.
Should anyone here wish to call his office to express support for impeaching Donald Trump, I would suggest using this number: 607-242-0200.
Thank you for reading this!
Donald Trump truly has the most dangerous form of mental illness that you can find in a leader, Gartner told KrassenCast. He suffers from a personality disorder called malignant narcissism. Malignant narcissism was actually introduced by Erich Fromm, the famed psychoanalyst, who himself narrowly escaped the Nazis. Malignant narcissism was his attempt to explain the psychology of dictators like Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini.
Dr. John Gartner
John Gartner is a psychologist who specializes in personality disorders. He worked for 28 years at John Hopkins University, and now focuses on private practice. In early 2017, his petition of over 40,000 mental health professionals stated that Donald Trump was unsuited to serve as president, and that Trump posed a threat to our nation. He has since formed the political action committee, Duty to Warn, to educate members of Congress and the general public about the threats that Trump poses.
I particularly like the above quote, because he identifies Erich Fromm as the person who coined the label malignant narcissism. Fromm used this to describe those people referred to as psychopaths or sociopaths in North America, who pose the greatest danger to society. Older forum members may recall that I've spoken of how Fromm's description fits Donald Trump on numerous OP/threads here since Trump became president.
That's all good and true, you may be thinking, but are there features of this dangerous disorder that may help us anticipate what behaviors we may anticipate if the House impeaches him, and it goes to the Senate for trial? How might he behave in the context of the trial, and in his other duties as president? Those are good questions. Let's look closer, shall we?
The place we might start is from something that a number of women here had said when Trump was the republican candidate: he is abusive to others publicly, as batterers tend to be behind closed doors. Hence we hear him, and his republican family members, parroting that the Ukrainian president said he didn't feel any pressure from Trump to investigate the Bidens. As if it would have been any safer for Zelensky to say that Trump was pressuring him, than it would be for a wife in couple's therapy to say her husband was battering her, in front of his face. That's not a safe setting.
So no thinking person is surprised now that Trump is verbally abusive towards witnesses who have testified against him, or the Democrats conducting the hearings. We know that his attacks will not only continue, but to increase as days turn into weeks. For he is not only a weak man, but he is a malignant narcissist who was unable to control himself even when House republicans asked him to, while they questioned the female ambassador that he smeared and removed from office. There are two key points there: he is especially prone to vicious attacks on women, and he lacks self-control even when it may be to his benefit.
Despite his bluffs, Trump does not want to be impeached. He is aware of what that means in terms of his place in history. We know that, despite his being a conspiracy theorist, his primary goal in attacking the Ukrainians who supported Clinton in 2016 isn't because they violated the law like the Russians did rather, he wants to punish anyone and everyone who has ever opposed him.For he is a spiteful, cruel malignant narcissist.
His primary motivation in the context of a Senate trial will be to disrupt it as often as possible, by cheap attacks on any witnesses, Democrats, and anyone tangentially associated with the case against him. Now, that's a lot of people. But he will attack each one, and insist that all republicans join in with him.
The House committees have more information that documents Trump's corruption than has been made public at this time. Also, there will continue to be more leaks coming from the administration especially the White House in the weeks ahead. The sum total will make it more difficult for republicans to pretend it was a perfect phone call, rather than an illegal operation. This obviously will result in Trump's becoming more angry, and more intent upon attacking witnesses. He will become a dog in the late stages of rabies, seeking to bite enemies real and imagined with every step he takes.
And this brings us to the threats he poses domestically and on the international scene. Again, his nature compels him at attack those he sees as now supporting him. He will nor restrict himself to trying to intimidate them. Instead, he will hyper-actively seek to punish them with every power of the presidency. And even that will not be enough: he will attempt to exercise powers that no president has.
We've been in a dangerous time since the day he was sworn in. And we are entering a new phase of heightened threat. Yet with those dangers comes opportunity. We have the ability to kick the shit out of the Trump presidency.
Simple logic can point one way while wisdom may be in quite a different direction.
Senator Robert Byrd
Question: Do you have time to read books? If so, which ones would you recommend?
Biden: My goodness, let's see. There's Mr Putin, by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy. Insightful.
VP Joe Biden in Joe Biden: The Rolling Stone Interview
How, one might ask, do these two apparently very different quotes relate directly to the impeachment of Donald Trump? More specifically, how do they relate to conversations that various Senators were having in the evening, after yesterday's hearings? Or are they only connected in the mind of an old man who posts confused essays on this forum?
The quote from Senator Byrd comes from the impeachment trial of President Clinton. While I disagreed with Byrd's belief that Clinton deserved to be impeached, I came to appreciate his reasoning for voting against impeachment in this case. Let's briefly consider what he meant in the above quote.
From the beginning, various experts have interpreted the Constitution differently. Hence, in such instances, it often has resulted in conflicts of interpretation being decided by the US Supreme Court. The court's decision define constitutional law. The majority of these important case tend to focus on those conflicts over the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (There is a fascinating book, The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding, with contributions from serious scholars edited by Eugene Hickok, published by the University of Virginia in 1991, that everyone should read.)
There are few decisions concerning the impeachment of a president, because such events are rare. But thoughts on various legal scholars' opinions can be found, and should be studied. There is general agreement that offenses requiring impeachment in the House are outlined in the Federalist Papers # 65 and 66. In fact, any of the nonsense we hear from House republicans today can be rejected because they ignore those instructive opinions.
However, when tried in the Senate, those offenses can be viewed in a larger context. This context is intended to ask what is best for the nation? Sadly, at this point, it may wrongly expand to include what is best for the political party, and equally wrong, what is best for the individual's chance for re-election.
Potential impeachment and conviction can therefore be viewed, in theory, as weighing the damage of the offense to the disruption the impeachment process would cause the nation. Again, opinions will always vary in any individual case being considered. Let's start with the fairly recent example of Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. Without question, everyone knew this involved impeachable offenses. So why wasn't Reagan impeached?
A large number of republicans in DC believed rightly of wrongly that coming on the heels of Nixon, it would destabilize government institutions. A smaller number of republicans found common ground with the Democratic leadership on three things: Reagan was involved in negotiations on nuclear weapons with the USSR that would be disrupted by impeachment, that Reagan was half-way through his second term, and that he was highly unlikely to engage in such corrupt behavior again.
These are similar in nature to what Senator Byrd said about President Clinton. Byrd was furious with some of Clinton's behaviors. But he knew that convicting him in the Senate would be divisive, that Clinton was about half-way through his second term, and that he was unlikely to repeat his offense. Thus, while his logical choice was to vote to convict Clinton, he recognized that was not a wise choice.
I can say with 100% certainty that Senate republicans have been having these things researched, and have quoted Byrd in recent off-the-record conversations among themselves and with Democrats. They seek to justify voting to not convict Trump, and some are hoping that Democrats will accept the compromise of censure.
And this, my friends, brings us to Fiona Hill, her testimony yesterday, and her book on Putin. Even if we were not where we are today, I would strongly recommend her book (get the updated second edition). The book contains a deeply disturbing psychological profile of Putin, which is necessary to understand not only what Putin does, but more importantly, why he does things in the manner he does. In other words, the why is essential for predicting his future behaviors.
That exact same approach must be taken in evaluating the impeachment and possible conviction of Trump. Anything less than conviction and removal from office is unacceptable. First, he is not near the end of a second term, nor is there any evidence he would not repeat the same corrupt behaviors if he remains in office. Indeed, the timing of his Ukraine phone call, coming the day after Robert Mueller's public testimony, documents just the opposite. More, when asked about the possibility of similar calls with other foreign leaders, Fiona Hill responded by saying presidential privilege prevented her from answering. There are more. Many more.
In closing, I'd like to say that the Constitution provides for citizens to take an active role in determining the outcome. It's not only our elected officials who have the responsibility of studying and acting upon these issues. Over the holiday season, we can lobby Senators to let them know our thoughts on the need to convict and remove Trump. We can bombard the media with letters and phone calls. We can do this either as individuals, or in a coordinated group effort. And personally, there is no group of citizens I'd rather coordinate with than the DU community. Believe it or not, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and combined with others' ideas, I think we could have some fun.
I just got back home, and saw a film clip of Trump saying it's all over as a result of Sondland's testimony. Then I saw a couple friends here had posted photos of the curious notes that Trump was reading from. The combination of these reminded me of when Nixon began to melt under the pressure of the Watergate investigations. (Note: I have been thinking about comparisons since reading an important OP by PCIntern, which is linked below.)
In both cases, the televised hearings and the reporting about them were/are roller-coaster rides : it was/is delightful to see the cesspools of corruption exposed, frustrating to hear the republicans defending that corruption, and a bit unnerving to witness a president melting down and becoming a threat to national security.
Last week's testimony from Bill Taylor and George Kent was powerful. But, at least in my opinion, Marie Yovanovitch was even stronger in exposing just how underhanded this administration is. I find her to be high among the very good witnesses from the Watergate hearings. This week's witnesses continue to document how criminal Trump & Friends are. And this fellow Sondland is something else. He apparently is intelligent, yet he has an uncanny ability to come across a tad clownish.
Perhaps the witness I am most interested in hearing testifies tomorrow. Fiona Hill will add a lot of evidence about the Trump administration's ultimately failed operation in Ukraine.
I agreed with the OP linked above, because I was alive, awake, and aware when the Watergate crimes were being investigated. More, in recent times, I've watched the films of both the Senate Select Committee and the House hearings on Watergate. The republicans today are as similar to those of the Watergate era, as the dandelions of 2019 are to those of 1974.. However, as the Rolling Stones noted, dandelions don't tell no lies, dandelions will make you wise clearly proving dandelions are a higher life form than republicans.
What is different and essential for our understanding of why this may appear different is that Newton Leroy Gingrich's Contract on America purposely broke the House's ability to function. That was a large part of the republican agenda, as this would promote the imperial presidency that Newton, Bill Barr, and others haters-of-the-Constitution advocate. I'd also add that televised news 24/7 and the internet have increased the pace of our exposure to corrupt republican blathering.
The Democrats in the House were solid during Watergate, and they are today. I'd like to say that Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney was intense today. I believe that Sondland learned not to mess with him today. I, for one, will show my appreciation for him with a campaign contribution
Finally, about comparisons between Nixon and Trump ..an interesting but difficult topic. One of my favorite songs was Neil Young's Ohio. My generation saw it as Neil's indictment of Nixon. Yet weeks before the republican national convention of 1976, Neil first performed Campaigner, that took a different position on Nixon. He referenced Nixon's being hospitalized for a pulmonary embolism that nearly killed him shortly before he left office, Nixon's years of campaigning, and even claimed that Nixon had soul.
Trump recently made a strange trip to the hospital. But he does not have a soul. He has none of the few good qualities that Nixon had. But he has all of Nixon's creepy qualities. None.
I'll finish by saying that, after watching Gym Jordan and Devin Nunes, I am convinced that we have to work very hard on the 2020 elections. We need to bring the republican obstructionists' political careers to the same guillotine that Trump's presidency is heading towards.
PS: We Okay, Boomers had some mighty fine music.
When I use a word,
.it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. Humpty Dumpty
The question is .whether you can make words mean so many different things. Alice
The question is .which is to be master. Humpty Dumpty
Lewis Carroll; Through the Looking Glass
Words are curious things. They can be used properly or improperly. As I've noted in the past on this forum, when the ancient philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do if he had complete political power, he said he would insist that people use words properly.
In Genesis 11: 1-9, we find the allegory of the Tower of Babel. Those who approach this ancient myth with concrete thinking believe it describes why the peoples of the earth speak different languages. Those with understanding of what specific words were intended to communicate recognize that there is a higher meaning.
Obviously, these are the things I find myself thinking about during the short break in today's House impeachment hearings. Gym Jordan and Devin Nunes are clearly attempting to distract and confuse the public with their choice of words. As toxic as we might find Stephen Castor, it is important to recognize that his choice of words is entirely proper in the context of an attorney representing a guilty-as-sin client in a criminal court hearing. And that word criminal is the most accurate possible to define the Trump administration.
I've found the witnesses this morning to be precise in describing the Trump corruption. Like last week's witnesses, they are honorable people. While it is highly unlikely that I would agree with them on every political and social issue, I have great respect for them. I recognize that they are putting not only themselves, but their families as well, at risk of retaliation from the administration and those who support them.
It will be interesting to see what Gordon Sondland does tomorrow. Will he even show up? Take the 5th? Or tell the truth? Time will tell. Equally, if not more important, will be Fiona Hill's testimony on Thursday. Gym and Devin will be in way, way over their heads.
I am extremely impressed with Chairman Adam Schiff. I've long had a very high opinion of him, yet the respect grows daily. He is taking his place in history, ranking with the honorable people who have taken a just stand in the national scandals that have taken place during my lifetime ..all of these scandals, by no coincidence, taking place in republican administrations.
Certainly among the most impressive participants is Daniel Goldman. I find it a bit ironic that he worked under Preet Bharara in the Southern District of New York. To paraphrase my friend Rubin Carter, what goes 'round comes 'round, unless you have Roger Stone's head, because then you've got nothing at all.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov; The Roving Mind
I think that we can all agree that Trump's base is a cult. I'm not speaking of those in Washington who dislike the president, but are willing to publicly humiliate themselves for job security. Or those republicans across the country who don't think Trump is a real republican, but always vote along party lines.
Rather, I am thinking of those who attend his rallies, where they behave in the manner of religious experience, with all sense of individuality lost. The crowd becomes an individual organism, swaying and shouting praise in veneration to the object of their devotion. They are, as Asimov says, the most ignorant, uneducated, unimaginative, and unthinking among us. And they seek to force their god upon us.
I was speaking to an old friend last night, an aging hippie who helped finance my social activism for many decades. As Thanksgiving approaches, he dreads talking to his brother-in-law, who he describes as aggressively stupid. My friend said few things are as annoying as when, if he points out something bad Trump is doing, the guy says, They all do it.
My first response to such nonsense would be to ask who they are? The most likely answer is, You know all of them. This provides the opportunity to point out that there have actually been but three past administrations with anything similar: Nixon formed his own intelligence/dirty tricks unit known as the plumbers; Reagan and Bush 1 had the National Security Council engage in illegal, hidden foreign policies; and Dick Cheney formed a Nixon-style intelligence unit run through the Office of the Vice President. By no coincidence, in each example, people were convicted of felony charges. This tends to take the fuzz of the they all do it peach.
Next, ask if the person values the Constitution? Is it more or less valuable than political party affiliation? When was the last time they read the Constitution? Specifically, the part about impeachment? Have they read the Federalist Papers? Specifically, numbers 65 and 66, which contain the Founding Fathers' thoughts on impeachment? What exactly do they say about presidents who have unseemly relationships with foreign powers, for personal advantage? Call it speculation on my part if you will, but I'd bet $10 to a penny they haven't read these documents.
I'd ask them to explain what exactly they believe the word bribery is intended to mean in the Impeachment Clause? Next, I'd ask them to describe why the Founding Fathers substituted the words high crimes and misdemeanors for the previously proposed maladministration in the Constitution? What is the difference? What advantages and disadvantages are contained in each?
My friend cracked up laughing, and said that I could talk circles around most people. I said that's a shame, at least in my opinion, because every citizen should be interested in and educated about the Constitution what each section means, why it was included, and how we can best use it to maintain our democratic republic.
In my opinion, impeachment is intended to not only protect the nation from any individual action by a president though there ar individual actions that should truly disqualify any person from holding that office but more frequently, to determine that a series of actions show that the president simply cannot be trusted to not engage in future maladministration.
Enjoy this week, for we are both witnessing and participating in history.
While watching today's House of Representatives' impeachment hearings, I am reminded of one of Minister Malcolm X's most important teachings. Malcolm taught that if you place a clean glass of crystal clear water next to a filthy glass of sludge, you can trust a thirsty person to make the right choice. It is apparent that the Democrats have that sparkling glass of water next to the republicans' sludge.
A friend on this forum noted that some people will view the hearings through the filter of Fox News. That is true. The Fox filter will add more toxins to the sludge these people consume. However, by definition, they are not the thirsty people who will be thinking about the hearings.
Rather, they are but one of the three groups who will be paying attention to the hearings. Fox News viewers are a minority within the republican party. Later for them. Much later. Another of the three groups that support the impeachment and removal of Trump are a larger group. The hearings can only reinforce their views.
It's the third group those who are undecided, or have no firm opinion who make up the thirsty people that Malcolm spoke of. By watching coverage of the hearings, they will learn that the Trump administration's shadow operation in Ukraine was more corrupt than the public knew yesterday. Thus, I am confident that they will support impeaching Trump.
I wanna tell you 'bout Texas Radio and the Big Beat
Comes out of the Virginia swamps
Cool and slow with deadly precision
With a back beat narrow and hard to master.
I'd like to discuss some people that I dislike, who are current or past inhabitants of the bowels of the Trump administration. Let's start with John Bolton. Like others of his ilk, he both favored the war in Vietnam, but figured out a way to avoid fighting in it. He is an old hand in DC, having worked for presidents Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and most recently Trump. He has been a constant advocate for regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and Yemen. He worked to get Rehnquist and Scalia on the Supreme Court. He participated in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Thus, we can conclude two things: Bolton is a necro-conservative, and is no friend of the Democratic Party. But that does not mean that we cannot take pleasure in his emerging conflict with Donald Trump. As concerning as it was when he joined Trump's administration, there were hints of tensions between the two even before Bolton resigned. (Trump, of course, insisted he fired Bolton.)
From witness testimony before the House committees, we know that Bolton called Rudy Giuliani a hand grenade that would blow up inside the administration. He referred to the Ukraine plot as a drug deal. Bolton originally said through his lawyer that he would testify if he received a subpoena; since then, his attorney has recommended that he seek a federal court ruling regarding Trump's effort to prevent his testimony.
In conversations between Bolton's lawyer and a House committee, several things are known. These go far beyond what others have testified to thus far. Included are Bolton's private conversations with Trump, which the White House attorney claims are protected by privilege. Because these discussions illegal activities that are impeachable, there is no privilege.
More, Bolton had a series of conversations with both Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper about the folly of the White House's Ukraine operation. Apparently, all three were aware of the dangers of such an operation, and attempted to convince Trump it would backfire on him. Pompeo waivered at important times, due to his lack of backbone. Clearly, the military aide to Ukraine was not released until two days after the administration learned the whistle-blower's concerns were going to be made public.
Despite the stumbling blocks that have been set in place to prevent Bolton from testifying, it is likely that he will be a witness in the public hearings before Thanksgiving.
Now, briefly, let's look at the book A Warning by Anonymous. The book was authored by the same person or persons that wrote the infamous op-ed that was published when Bob Woodward's book Fear was released. Thus, it is safe to assume that the author/authors were coordinating with Woodward, who has a long history of destabilizing administrations by way of combining intelligence and journalism.
Trump was furious when the op-ed was published, and attempted to identify the identity of its author. If a top White House person was personally communicating with the New York Times, it would have been uncovered. Thus, we can speculate that Woodward advised the author(s) to have a lawyer representing the author(s) handle the situation. So we need to think ..which White House person has a close relationship with a lawyer that the NY Times would recognize as being connected to what was going on inside the administration?
No spokesperson for Trump disagrees publicly with the president. So let's look closer. Why, for example, has Mourning Joe refused to have Kellyanne Conway on for over a year? If we were to look back to the 24 hours after her last appearance, we would find my essay telling about how, during commercial breaks, Kellyanne pretended to put her finger down her throat to induce vomiting, and spoke about how out-of-control Trump was. Joe and Mika were sorely offended, and decided to not allow her on their show again.
But, does Conway have any known contact with a lawyer who dislikes Trump, and who the NY Times would recognize as representing the interests of one or more people in the White House? Let's think ..hmmmm ..might George fit that description?
In it, the author(s) explain that a group of high-ranking officials considered resigning together in public protest of Trump's behaviors. Is it a stretch to consider the possibility that this same general group of cowards joined together to write the op-ed and now the book? Does one find any hint in where the profits from the book will go? Surely the White House would easily discover if one person had a significant bump in income from a book publisher showing up in their tax returns.
A single author might donate proceeds to a charity. A group of contributors might be more likely to donate the funds, rather than attempting to divide the money fairly. And a group effort to prevent Trump from finding out who has betrayed him could be more successful than an individual's effort. This would make sense within the context of a system where such a group had considered a mass resignation.
Profile InformationMember since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 72,656
- 2023 (67)
- 2022 (101)
- 2021 (54)
- 2020 (102)
- 2019 (93)
- 2018 (95)
- 2017 (92)
- 2016 (102)
- 2015 (143)
- 2014 (134)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)