Impeachment and Life After Trump: "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America"

 

Like him or hate him, you have to admit that Donald Trump was never boring. From his sold out speeches in stadiums throughout the country, to his press conferences and verbal jousts with so-called "journalists", to his tweets, we never knew what he was going to say.

However, it was mostly the later, his tweets, which were the most incendiary. Though they were typically directed to his supporters, he would use the platform to go after those who attacked him directly or indirectly. It became a way to express his opinions in a candid and often unfiltered way. 

On January 6th, massive numbers of pro-Trump and ordinary conservatives from around the country descended on Washington DC to express their anger at what they saw as a blatantly rigged election and failed government. But it was much more than that. They were tired of the condescending attitude of members of Congress (both parties) and open bias of the media.

They had endured eight years of mockery and ridicule under the Obama Administration and a full four years of barely concealed contempt and smugness from the Speaker of the House on down. It was just as bad in the Senate. It was all over the news and on social media nearly every minute of every day. It was integrated into magazines, books, music, TV shows, radio, and movies.

Now that the nation had a new (and some who believed an illegitimate) President suddenly calling for "unity" and "coming together" with that the Status Quo back in charge was too much.  So, they planned, organized, and came together in a open and highly visible expression of their own contempt for a system which failed them; which belittled them.

Anyone who bothered to look out their window could see what was happening. There was no doubt that the Establishment was peeing down its collective leg. They were terrified. Hiding in locked rooms, in closets, under tables. They couldn't imagine the American People were actually coming together and saying "enough!". It's the one thing they least expected. It was also the one thing they feared the most.

Trump tweeted out words of support and encouragement. This was what he had fought for over the last four years. Never did his tweets call on the protesters to vandalize, loot, or deface property the way Antifa or BLM had done the preceding year. Never did he urge the protestors to break windows or even enter House or Senate chambers. And, he never encouraged the violence which unfolded.

Yes, a number of the protestors were armed. It was no secret. It was out in the open for all to see. But not surprisingly, their message was lost on the elites. What could all those gun toting protestors carrying American flags and pro-Trump banners want except to tar and feather members of Congress? 

 But the message was clear to the most casual viewer. They were there to impress on Washington that the American People have a right to carry arms. It's called the Second Amendment. It's right up there with the First Amendment---the right to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and to assemble.

 It didn't mean they were there for violence. It was to remind Congress that the People have those rights and will protect them if need be. Of course, how do you explain this to those who sincerely believe they have a pre-ordained right to rule---not govern--- but rule? The concept was beyond their understanding.  But something went wrong. What? The answer is that there were multiple mistakes.

The first mistake was the media. The only ones there that day was the corporate media which has spent every moment over the last four years trying to divide this country, be it Left vs. Right vs.the Center; black vs. white vs. brown vs. yellow vs. everyone else; men vs. women; straights vs. gays, and so on. Division, as artificial as it may be, drives ratings and ratings equal advertising which is money. Divided we can be controlled and manipulated. Together we can't.

The corporate media is the eyes, ears, and mouthpiece of the Status Quo; the Establishment. If you watched any of the "reporting". They were stunned to find conservative blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans in with the crowds. They were equally stymied to see gun totting women and yes, even gays there as part of the protest. It didn't fit the narrative they've been feeding us. The solution was, as always, to misdirect out attention, manipulate the image, and obscure the message.

What was missing was the eyes, ears, and voice of the protestors. Who was their media advocate? The answer was no body (you can't really include Fox News anymore). Image is perception. Perception becomes reality. It controls the narrative, and the organizers left it to the corporate media to dictate what that would be.

The second mistake was not knowing the crowd. I don't how the organizers set about getting the message out, but they did a good job in getting people there. But there was a large gathering of Antifa and BLM just a few blocks away for their own event, which could have easily spun out of control had the two groups clashed. 

Some allege that Antifa infiltrators were the ones breaking windows and spray painting walls,  but there's no hard proof of that (vandalism is a hallmark of Antifa as America and the world witnessed last year).  For those unaware, Antifa is a Far Left anarchist group. They are not directly associated with the Democrats per se. While the name is shorthand for "Anti-Fascist" they tend to behave similar to Nazi Brownshirts and Mussolini's Blackshirts, both  fascist organizations, and the Maoist Red Front.

Several members of the pro-Trump crowd tried to point out these interlopers and separate them from other protestors (they were mostly successful). However, the damage was done, both figuratively and literally. Without a supportive media there to record it as it happened, it created the image the radical Left wanted and the Status Quo hoped for.

The third mistake was Trump himself. The election was over, and whether the results were right or rigged, the corporate media was portraying the outcome as factual.  Trump resisted. He was upset and angry, and he struck out. Never let your emotions guide your actions. He should have known that as a businessman. But, unintentionally, it was his tweets which were his undoing.

President Trump had long used social media to bypass blatantly biased news outlets so much so that they spent as much time on his tweets and posts as they did on his actual statements. Following the election, his media bursts became sharper.

However, on January 6th, Trump tweeted messages like "stay strong" and "fight like hell" to his supporters . While his intent was to provide moral encouragement, the message was distorted. It was filtered through a corporate media seething with hatred for the President and his supporters. It was portrayed in a matter not intended. It was portrayed as to encourage violence and mayhem.

In all likelihood, I suspect that neither Trump or his staff were fully aware of what was actually happening outside. After all, they had been hurried into secure rooms, safe from any potential harm. Any information they received from outside was likely old, incomplete, or possibly inaccurate.

Given Trump's history, his cell phone should have been "secured". Without full knowledge of events, anything more than a "be safe" or "keep it peaceful" message was bound to do more harm than good, and, as we all know, it did. 

Ultimately, one protester, Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by Capital Police. One police officer died while engaging protestors. Three others died from natural causes, and several were injured. Papers inside House and Senate chambers were strewn everywhere. Even Pelosi's podium was stolen! Windows were broken, laptops went missing, along with some general vandalism as mentioned previously.

The Establishment was pissed. It was time for revenge, and it came swift starting with social media suspending a setting President's accounts and cutting off any direct and unfiltered communication with the American public. There was also a crackdown on Conservative sites as well, including pressuring other social media sites to comply with their new guidelines or risk being deplatformed.

Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi was publically beside herself in anger that citizens had invaded the "People's House" while they were doing "the People's business" without permission. Ugh! We can't have the common rabble running around Congress. Who do these peasants think they are? It's not like Congress actually represents them or anything right?

So, Trump is gone. Biden is President, but that's not the end of the story. Trump is to be the first American President to be impeached twice, which could create a Constitutional crisis of sorts. Can someone be prosecuted for what happened while in office after they've left? We know they can be removed from office while still in office, but what if they're no longer in office?

It's likely the matter will eventually find its way before the Supreme Court, assuming the High Court will even hear the matter. After all, the point of impeachment is to censure the individual for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and, secondly, to remove them from office if necessary. In our history, only three presidents have been impeached, Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.  But what about Richard Nixon? Why could he be important?

President Nixon was never impeached for his role in the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up which included a kidnapping, wiretapping, destruction of evidence, and lying to Congress. However, the House was proceeding with impeachment hearings when Nixon resigned (had he not, he would have likely been impeached and possibly removed from office).

Nevertheless, Nixon was never tried although others were, and some went to jail for their roles. As far as ole "Tricky Dick" Nixon was concerned, the matter was dropped. Nixon didn't lose any of his perks of having been president either. Trump is accused of far less.

It seems to me Nixon comes the closest to Trump's current situation. Nixon avoided impeachment by resigning, nevertheless the stigma remained. As Trump is no longer President, there is no reason to impeach him. His removal from office came as a result of the election. Like Nixon (and even Clinton), the stigma of the first impeachment will itself likely keep him from ever seeking public office again.

But unlike Nixon or Clinton, this isn't about a break in or lying to Congress about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. It's political, which means its personal. Donald Trump was an outsider who upset the plans of the Status Quo by defeating Hillary Clinton. He then set about exposing the corruption of Establishment, which included both parties, big business, and the media. That was unacceptable. This is about sending a message addressed "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America".

That message is a simple one. They will not ever allow another outsider. They will never again be publicly exposed for who they are. They are self-ordained to rule by virtue of their wealth and connections. They are not "one of us". They are our betters. They, and they alone know what's best for us. Our job is to keep quiet and do as we're told. Set back and enjoy the "bread and circuses".

The game is rigged. It's fixed. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".  Everything you or I suspected is likely not just true, but worse than we imagined. Once we accept this simple truth, regardless of which wing of the vulture we're under, the better we're going to be. Why? Because knowing the truth isn't the same as accepting it. Once it's accepted, you can act on it. You can start doing something about it.

 

 

These Are The 5 People Who Died in the Capital Riot

Watergate Scandal

George Carlin: It's a big club and you ain't in it

 

 

It's Official: Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton Are The Nominees for President

So, it's official. Our choices for US president are Donald J Trump, representing the Republican Party or Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. On the GOP side, most of the former contenders chose to boycott the convention after discussion of some backroom details to manipulate various bylaws came to nothing, with the exception of Ted Cruz who delivered a non-endorsement speech at the convention after having previously indicated that he would endorse Trump as the Republican nominee. He later give a rant against "the Donald" (some would call it a "baby fit") that is destined to become a newsreel classic and encouraged everyone to "vote their conscience". I guess Cruz failed to note the irony in his statement since Republican voters did just that and that's why he isn't their presidential nominee.

On the Democrat side, Hillary's "coronation" was a foregone conclusion to everyone, including the media, except Bernie Sander's supporters. They put up quite a ruckus with jeers and booing, and getting quite rowdy on the convention floor and out n the halls although the media showed very little of it and seemed to be trying very hard to downplay their disenchantment. Even Fox News, which has shown itself not to be as "fair and balanced" as it self-promotes focused on Hillary supporters and had little to say about the Sanders protestors. I guess if they didn't cover it, it didn't happen right? Eventually, the pro-Sanders forces were moved outside and allowed to chant and wave signs to their socialistic heart's content. God love 'em. However, the media also failed to report on the arrests at the convention. Why was that? Because officially, there were no "arrests" since the police roundups were deemed "detentions" for questioning, and thus, there were no bookings. All this amidst the mass release of incriminating emails by WikiLeaks showing a coordinated collusion to "fix" the nomination process between Hillary Clinton's camp and DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, which comes on the heels of Hillary admonishment by the Director of the FBI, James Comey, of gross mishandling of government emails (some of them classified), the use of unsecured cell phones and servers. What is it with Democrats and emails I wonder?

Anyway, given the number and severity of the charges (110 I believe it was), Hillary should have been fitted for a nice orange and black jumpsuit instead of addressing the Democrat National Convention in a pantsuit. But as author F. Scotts Fitzgerald once said to his friend and drinking buddy, Ernest Hemingway, "the rich are different from you and I". I just prefer to think that some are simply exempt from the law, and it ain't us. As a result, Wasserman was first removed as the opening speaker and then was forced to resign as head of the Democratic Party. She was even booed offstage at her own pre-convention breakfast (tough crowd). But not to fear! As soon as her resignation was announced, Hillary came to the rescue and hired her to work for her campaign going forward. I guess the old adage about keeping your friends close and your accomplices closer still applies (Richard Nixon should have considered this, but then as someone once remarked following the Watergate hearings, when asked what lessons were learned, they answered "don't hired amateurs").

All I can say at this point is that based on Donald Trump's pre and post nomination rhetoric, he can be counted on to do the one thing he is best at, being "the Donald". His comments are often off the cuff and totally unscripted, although I'm not entirely convinced that the reactions to his remarks aren't anticipated. I think his statements are intended to get reactions; the more outrageous the better because it excites his supporters and keeps his opponents off guard. They don't know if he's serious or if so, just how serious. If you think about it, this is a great tool for someone who makes his living by negotiating with other high rollers in the "take no prisoners" world of high dollar real estate deals. I think it could play well when cutting deals with other world leaders...or perhaps Congress.

As for Hillary, we've got to see her through Bill's two terms as president. We got to see her interacting with the media and world leaders as the First Lady, as the principal player in a national healthcare initiative, with promoting programs for childcare, early education, and as a woman who has been humiliated on a global scale by her husband, the President of the United States, in an affair with an intern (one of many as we later learned). We saw her bounced back; reinvent herself and run for US Senator, and then for president. Though she lost, she managed to cut a deal for Secretary of State. No small feat. However, it was here that she seems to have repeatedly stumbled, and it seems each failure was more serious than the previous one.

Perhaps that can be excused, but what could not be excused was her cold and calculated responses before Congress regarding her blatant disregard for an American ambassador that she didn't like according to some reports or for former servicemen working in conjunction with the Embassy and CIA; neither their repeated requests for additional security personnel, for permission to prepare to evacuate due to changing conditions and increasing signs of danger, repeated requests for military assistance while were under attack and the valiant but vain efforts of former Navy Seals trying to hold off overwhelming forces (and the subsequent dismissals of senior military officers on station who were willing and able to rescue them but were repeatedly denied permission). Then there was the attempts at a cover-up (remember the bogus claim about some insignificant movie being the cause issued by her assistant?), improper and possibility illegal destruction of emails, and a serious case of amnesia when questioned by the FBI.

Then came more revelations regarding her repeated earlier refusals to use secured government issued cell phones, or allow to her personal cell phone to be at least routed through secured servers, and then there's there the issue of her total disregard in the disposal of government emails, especially of classified messages (later Russia and China offered to provide investigators with copies of the missing emails since they were able to tap into her unsecured cell phone and copy them). These are serious breaches of national security. Senior military officers, intelligence operatives and professional diplomatic staff have been severely disciplined and even fired for far lesser security violations, yet, despite being severely chastised by FBI Director Comey, nothing happened.

I have to set back and ask myself, which one would I trust in the Oval Office? I'm not talking about running day to day affairs. We've had complete idiots and inexperienced individuals in there and not much happened (I'm talking specifically about George W. Bush and Barak Obama, but there were others). They have professionals around them who can keep things going plus Congress. What I'm talking about is who do I trust to talk with our enemies, our friends, and most importantly, who do I trust in the event of a national emergency and with the "football", which is the briefcase that holds the launch authorization codes for America's nukes. Trump is a born negotiator. It's his strong suit. To be successful, and he's been amazingly successful, he has to be able to correctly read people, their motivations, and know just how far he can go. Sound judgment is essential. It can make the difference between making or losing billions of dollars, and it means the difference between hundreds or thousands of individuals having a job or not.

When I try to visualize Hillary, I don't see that skill. I see indifference. I see her raw arrogance versus Trump's practiced abrasiveness. I see someone making demands without thinking things through. I see temper tantrums and someone who has a complete lack of respect for the military, intelligence agencies, or even the State Department she once headed up, Congress, and yes, for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I also see someone willing to cut corners for expediency (even going back to when she worked for the Watergate Committee, she was fired for lying. The reason most often cited is for expediency; making the evidence fit her definition of the facts). For some reason, when I think of a "President Hillary Clinton", the image which keeps coming to mind is Peter Sellers in " Doctor Strangelove". I can't help it, I do. Trump on the other hand, seems something of a cross between and Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman with a bit of Teddy Roosevelt thrown in. Let's also remember that Trump, while lacking the political experience of Hillary, was born to be a CEO...literally. He knows how to lead and how to do it successfully. But, never fear friends. neither Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton aren't our only choices. There are two other candidates that I think merit a close examination. The first is Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and the other is the Green Party's Jill Stein. Both seem levels above the two main contenders, but we'll take a closer look at both of them shortly.


WikiLeaks Emails Show DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05


WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Email Archives
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/


WikiLeaks Releases Over 1000 Hillary Clinton Iraq War Emails
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/04/wikileaks-releases-clinton-war-emails/