Although very few people still believe that Donald Trump is a master negotiator, he looked even more stupid than usual when the news broke that in June 2017 he attempted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. Apparently his White House attorney talked him out of it, which I guess is a good thing, but now he has the worst of both worlds. He gets blamed for firing Mueller without actually being rid of Mueller. Not to mention, Mueller knows what he was up to. Not good.
The Art of the Heel
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
6 Comments. Leave new
but … but … why would he want to fire Mueller? Given that there is NO PRVF that the Dastardly Russians [TM] did a bad thing that never happened in the first place, Mueller could only prove Komrade Trumpinov innocent.
The only POSSIBLE explanation is that Trump is very sad that Hillary lost. (THAT, at least is entirely plausible at this point…)
Well, there are about 100 possible explanations (before breakfast).
And yes, winning wasn’t the plan, at least that’s the takeaway from the Fire and Fury book whose truthiness probably matches that of the administration though…
Imagine yourself an absolute bastard that craves attention and adulation, and you go around and make a living wheeling in suckers (and then sucker-punching them). Then you double down on it by creating this public persona of an unrepentant asshole who is raising snake-oil sales to an art form.
All the while fresh bodies keep being left routinely in your wake as you are overly eager to have your tiny fingers in all the pies, in particular the ones so deep in the gutter to be beneath what the actual economic and cultural elites (who you despise yet yearn to be accepted by in equal terms) would stoop to.
Why would one then recoil from the idea of an investigator snooping around?
Who can even remember all the crap that has been pulled, and whether it was legal (how quaint!), let alone how the crap could be spun by a determined opponent. Remember, by now you have completely moved beyond even the concepts of truth or legality: truth is made by spin, and daily re-made, and law-breaking is but the exercise of selective enforcement of rules by state agencies, rules that all the important players flaunt as a matter of course and even of pride.
Being subject to an investigation, and having to come to court like a dog to heel is in itself in direct conflict with one’s self-image of being above it all, beyond the law, beyond one’s power being questioned by mere mortals. The very idea is sacrilege. Gates, Zuckerberg, Romney, Oprah and Obama don’t have such witch hunts running against them, not because an investigation wouldn’t turn up stuff, but because it wouldn’t do to have them against aristocrats.
Being investigated – while Clinton isn’t – in itself is horrible optics, showing that the King is mortal. Firing the investigator, no matter how stupid, at least re-asserts control so that the Titanic can ram the Iceberg at full throttle with the Captain firmly and visibly calling the shots.
> Well, there are about 100 possible explanations
That might be a slight exaggeration – but you have missed my point. “Very sad about Hillary” is pretty much the only explanation offered by 99% of the deniers. They don’t like to admit it, but Hillary *is* their primary motivation – they don’t really care whether Duh Donald is guilty of anything, they just want to hate on Hillary.
I do remind you that Duh Duck has *already* admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation – not because of his shady finances – Russia. Donnie, Jr. has *already* admitted to peddling influence.
You have, indeed, offered alternate explanations. However, you offer a different explanation, with different motives for each of the score of players in this game.
e.g. The CIA is still fighting the cold war; a half-dozen cybersecurity agencies have been bribed; the NSA is looking for funding; Facebook and Twitter are … uh, well, I’m sure you have yet another motivation for them – even though you’ve never actually offered one when repeatedly asked.
Come to think about it, maybe you *do* have a hundred different explanations.
However, I favor Occam’s Razor. When one, simple, explanation explains the entire situation neatly, it is far more likely to be true than a hundred, different, convoluted explanations.
Trump should never talk to anyone under oath because he is a shameless compulsive liar, and that will knock him down regardless of his complicity in any underlying crimes that other more adept liars may accuse him of.
When Trump speaks he speaks truthfully from his true nature, for he is a truly a liar in his true nature and so speaks lies even when he speaks his truths as he knows them.
Information is precisely that which reduces uncertainty. Since whatever Trump says never reduces uncertainty, his speech is devoid of information in the common sense of the word.
Oh, heck yeah. I got a chuckle out of his willingness to testify under oath. Just ask any of his former business partners how good his promises are.
Sometimes, I wonder if this Trumpery is not all a show to distract us from the important things – the threats of a US war on the DPRK, a US trade war with China, South Korea, etc, US tax legislation for the benefit of what Mr Sanders calls «the billionaire class», increased military appropriations (over and above the black money already devoted to the purpose) in the country that spends more than the next five or six or seven combined….
But perhaps it is, as Horatio put it, to consider too curiously to consider so ?…
Henri