Trump Tries to Trump Comey, but Possibly Trumps Himself --- Out the Door?
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August 2018)
"How do you spell ICE in German? GESTAPO."
First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller (c. 1946)
1. Introduction
Jim Comey had a very significant influence on the 2016 Presidential election. Without his interference in it, starting about two weeks beforehand, Hillary Clinton, who had a narrow lead in the polls at the time, likely would have won. BUT (NYT, Trump-Comey relationship), Comey had overseen the Trump-Russia Election interference investigation, and in Trump's terms he hadn't done a good enough job on the Clinton emails investigation, and he helped get the Mueller Investigation started. So Trump fired him, in May 2017.
Comey, who came to the following perspective much too late (in this case NOT better-late-than-never)subsequently called the Trump presidency a forest fire that was doing serious damage to the country's norms and traditions. Trump has a very long memory, particularly for his enemies (e.g., George Soros). Given what has happened to him personally and to the nation, one must wonder if Mr. Comey has any regrets about his role in it. (If he does, they would surely be mentioned in his book, but I must admit that I haven't read it.)
In this column, I shall post excerpts from a column that I published on the Comey interference in the 2016 election, about a week before it. Second, I shall very briefly review what is known about the indictment as of this writing (on the morning after the night before). Summary: according to many authorities it is a very weak one, which might not even support a decision by the Presiding Judge to let it get to trial.
Third, I shall briefly review some of the series of decisions/appearances that Trump has made in recent weeks which are so embarrassing and, to use a common phrase of poltical analysis, off the wall, (plus changes in his physical state) that may, and I use the word may advisedly, prompt key sectors/leaders of the US Controlling Class to, in one way or another, send Trump into retirement .
He would be replaced by someone who actually would be much more effective in achieving their primary goal, which is implementing all the revolutionary changes to US Constitutional government which are contained in Project 2025. (According to one estimate, (they are 47% there.) Who might that person be? Well, constitutionally it would be V-P Vance, of course.
But also, given who he is and what he stands for on the Right (see his speech at the Kirk Funeral/Right-Wing-poltical-rally), and that he is much smarter than Trump (not hard to achieve), from their point-of-view, he would in any case be the ideal choice. That speech closed with the words: "[Kirk was] a hero to the United States of America and a martyr for the Christian faith."
2. James Comey and the 2016 Presidential Election (from a column that I posted on Nov. 2, 2016)
On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey, shooting like a comet over Washington, D.C., announced that after an extensive investigation ,no criminal charges relating to the improper use/protection/transmission of classified documents would be brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At the same time, in a speech, he launched into an extensive negative analysis of what had been done with emails, sensitive or not, on State Department or private servers, by Mrs. Clinton and members of her staff. That statement, very unusual for an FBI Director to make, had a transitory effect on Clinton’s poll numbers. But at the same time, the Director, in a highly unusual action, little noticed at the time, told leading Republican on the House Intelligence Committee that he would keep them informed of any further developments.
Then, on October 28, 2016, Mr. Comey announced publicly that there would be a further investigation of (possible) Clinton emails. He made this announcement before any investigation had begun, much less concluded, and before his agents had obtained even so much as a warrant for seizing a laptop that happened not to belong to Mrs. Clinton. This action by Comey was considered to be highly unusual, to say the least, by a variety of sources/authorities, including, for example, The.
The U.S. Justice Department strongly discouraged Comey from making such a speculative announcement. (It appeared as if Mr. Comey himself might be violating the law, that is the 1939 Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from taking actions close to elections which might influence their outcomes.) There have been a variety of political outcomes from the Comey action (I wrote on Nov. 1, 2016), ranging from no change in the Clinton/Trump poll numbers to significant changes in them, from no change in the generally predicted Clinton lock on the Electoral College vote to possibly enough of a Trump swing in the swing states to give the election to him. Most observers are not attributing ulterior motives to Mr. Comey.
Well, folks, I don't buy any of it. I think that what Comey did, from the July "even though we have nothing criminal on you you're a bad girl" speech to the present we are announcing that an investigation will be starting [once we get a warrant], without any idea that anything further that might be incriminating might be found is all part of a plan. In 2013 Mr. Comey had been given the customary ten-year term appointment as FBI Director by President Barack Obama. A career Federal prosecutor and occasional corporate lawyer who eventually became Deputy Attorney General under Bush, he is a Republican. He has had a reputation for highly ethical behavior.
But, and it’s a big but, first of all as a prosecutor Comey has been on the Clintons case for years. For example, Comey was the prosecutor on the famous Whitewater case --- that led to nothing. He was also the prosecutor of the Marc Rich pardon case, which, however distasteful the pardon was, and it was, led to nothing. But more importantly now, it is important to note that Mr. Comey does not live in a bubble.
He had to have known that what he was doing when he gave his totally unnecessary speech at the time he announced no criminal findings in the original Clinton emails/server case. He could simply have made the announcement, or have had his public affairs make it, and left it at that. But he did make his speech, and while it did not seem to have any long-term political effects, it did stir the political pot at the time.
This announcement has the pot boiling. It could swing the election to Trump. Although the conventional wisdom as of Nov. 1, when this column is being written, is that it won’t, because of Clintons heavy advantage in the Electoral College, Glenn Beck, an arch-reactionary who happens to be anti-Trump, thinks that Comey's announcement is one of the most irresponsible things to ever happen and could swing the election to Trump. And although unlikely, it could.
This did not happen by accident. An unprecedented announcement in October goes back to an unprecedented speech in July. Unprecedented once? Well, maybe by happenstance. Unprecedented twice? Well, not so much.
And guess what? Trump wins.
3. Why the Controlling Elite May Conspire to Get Rid of Trump
There are a number of reasons, some of which I will briefly review here (and will be considering in more detail down the road). First is this indictment itself. In a variety of quarters, it is considered to be monumentally weak (in the category of the ham sandwich that numerous trial lawyers have said an indictment could be obtained for). It has been stated that it might be thrown out by the trial judge, and, if it does go to trial, it is highly unlikely that a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia would unanimously vote to convict.
Also, it came just days after President Trump publicly implored his Justice Department to quickly seek such an indictment, a Trump-appointed Attorney-for-the-District had found no basis for such an indictment, and was promptly fired by Trump. Even in Trump’s first term there was no such a direct interference in the actions of the Justice Department. But in this term, Trump's vengeance has no limits.
And if he creates more side-shows like this one, doing so could very well get in the way of the Controlling Class's drive to complete the implementation of the plan laid out in P2025, designed to achieve (without bothering to go through any open legal or illegal process) a Second American Revolution. They do not want the conversion of the US to a unitary executive (by definition fascist*) state to be slowed down, possibly interrupted.
What might they not find in Trump policies/public-appearances-statements particularly useful in their drive to take over the Federal government? Very briefly for now consider: the Trump Tariffs (not a favorite with all of them); his ferocious hate speech and hateful speech at the Kirk funeral (not useful for winning undecideds over and possibly driving some adherents away); his violent (and mistake-filled) speech at the United Nations); his sudden reversal on Russia (given what Putin has on him, this is very difficult to explain, unless he worked it out with Putin in advance) for, let’s say, further Epstein Files distraction or domestic poltical purposes; now the Comey indictment, almost sure to lead to more bad publicity; the indications (these examples and others, but with no certainty, to be sure) of mental decline; indications of physical decline (e.g., the swollen ankles --- whatever they might mean, from venous insufficiency to congestive heart failure).
Will Trump sooner or later be "escorted out-of-the-White House? It is way too early to tell that for certain, but they do have a perfect, much-better-than-Trump-for-their-purposes replacement at the ready who is, of course the Vice-President. Just see his speech at the Kirk Funeral (with which I will be dealing in detail in my next column, on the forthcoming "American Christian Nation Party").
To be continued.
Fascism, a definition: "There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government that controls, for the most part, the functions of production, distribution, finance, and exchange. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, homophobia, and xenophobia. There is a political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control."