“REVOLUTION!” He Cries

“REVOLUTION!” He Cries December 12, 2018

President Trump is fantasizing about an authoritarian revolution, again.

During an interview with Reuters, the president mused about the multiple court filings and potentially damaging connections he has with those who are now facing the music for their campaign shenanigans and troublesome foreign contacts.

He began by decrying the payoff of his mistresses, porn star Stormy Daniels, and Playboy model Karen McDougal, as “no big deal.”

I mean, Trump’s former attorney and “fixer,” Michael Cohen is about to go to prison for it, but, sure. Ok. I guess that’s no big deal.

Of course, in the court filings, prosecutors with the Southern District of New York directly implicated the president in what they deem to be campaign finance law violations.

Federal prosecutors in New York said last week that Trump directed Cohen to make six-figure payments to two women so they would not discuss their alleged affairs with the candidate ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

They said the payments violated laws that stipulate that campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed, and limited to $2,700 per person.

Still, the president feels he did nothing wrong, so he has no fear of legal repercussions, or impeachment.

“It’s hard to impeach somebody who hasn’t done anything wrong and who’s created the greatest economy in the history of our country,” Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview.

Hyperbole.

This balderdash has become a go-to for Trump, because he knows no one in his camp will question him on it.

We won’t get into discussing the ebb and flow of the economy, the ballooning national debt under Trump, or the markets feeling the pinch from his ill-advised trade wars.

Yes, he’s seen some success, but it’s not the kind of success that can be sustained, given his poor decision making skills.

“I’m not concerned, no. I think that the people would revolt if that happened,” he said.

And there it is.

Trust me – Trump’s faithful do not think that far ahead, but if he says it should happen, they hear and obey.

Now, the argument could be made that President Trump wasn’t actually calling for his MAGA warriors to rise up and commit violence to defend him.

You could make that argument, but it would be out of step with what we’ve already seen from this clod.

During his campaign, he openly encouraged his supporters to “rough up” protesters, and promised that he would pay any legal fees incurred by their actions.

Of course, he did what he always does, there.

He lied.

Several of his supporters took him at his word and felt he would pay their legal fees, including a then-78 year old man, who sucker punched a protester who was being led out of a Trump rally in North Carolina.

He said he hoped Trump would help him out, but at last check, that legal help never came.

If you need further proof that to support Trump is synonymous with some sort of mental/moral disconnect, this tweet from Trump surrogate and former Milwaukee County sheriff, David A. Clark highlights what I mean.

Trump has further suggested that questioning him or expressing concern over his campaign activities (whether it was buying the silence of mistresses or working with Russians) is the same as “presidential harassment.”

He didn’t seem to feel as strongly when he was pushing the birther conspiracy about President Obama.

Regardless of how you feel about the multiple investigations that surround this administration, Trump’s constant calls of victimhood are absolutely Nixonian.

Suck it up, Donnie. It only gets worse, from here.

His not-so-subtle suggestions to his base, however, are simply reckless.

 

 

 

"I take a few issues with this article: I'd classify Juche as a religion, and ..."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."
"Is this perhaps why our cities (especially the inner cities) seem to be the source ..."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."
"Thanks for bringing us up to date on the worsening religious crisis in North Korea ..."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • “The generation which commences a revolution rarely complete it. Habituated from their infancy to passive submission of body and mind to their kings and priests, they are not qualified when called on to think and provide for themselves; and their inexperience, their ignorance and bigotry make them instruments often in the hands of the Bonapartes and Iturbides to defeat their own rights and purposes.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (1823)

  • JASmius

    This “the people [i.e. Redcaps[ will revolt” line is of a piece with his trademark disastrous public performance at the Oval Office versus “Chuck & Nancy” yesterday. It’s part of what may be the only method to his ongoing, incessant madness.

    We’ve all wondered why Trump endlessly shovels red meat to his cult two years into his presidency. Why does he not reach out beyond that base? He’s got to if he expects to have any serious/realistic chance at reelection, after all. And yet he never, ever does. His midterm campaigning, based in and fueled by ludicrous fear-mongering about “caravans” and “invasions” and all manner of similar nonsense was a dry run for his reelection campaign, and it produced the biggest GOP House defeat in forty-four years, and would have had similar Senate results had the Senate map not been the most favorable to Republicans in a century. Clearly, that’s not the path to a second term in 2020. And yet, Trump is incapable of campaigning any other way. He’s delusionally convinced himself that that is the reason he won in ’16. He got his proof to the contrary a month ago. So why does he persist with the red meat?

    There’s only one reason I can see: to avert removal from office in an impeachment trial. It makes perfect sense when you think it through. As long as Trump keeps #Cult45 revved up, surviving congressional Republicans, particularly in the Senate, will remain his hostages (fearing getting “primaried”), and thus much less likely to vote to convict and oust him should his multiple scandals culminate in his impeachment. That’s why he says he’s not worried about that happening. Not because he’s such a “great president” or “hasn’t done anything wrong,” but because he has and continues to, in his parlance, “rig” the system in his favor.

    There’s even a theory out there, floated by Jennifer Rubin yesterday, that Trump may not seek reelection (since he’d be as toxic as Lyndon Johnson was in early 1968 when he made the same decision) and then resign a few days before leaving office, allowing Mike Pence to succeed him and in Pence’s only official presidential act, turn around and pardon Trump. I don’t know that Pence would go along with such a scheme (given growing signs of his own at least peripheral complicity in the Russia scandal), but I can’t say with any confidence that he wouldn’t, either.

    It all comes down, as it always has, to whether there is a point beyond which GOPers will recognize that there best interests diverge from continuing to prop up their hay-haired captor. And if so, where and what that Rubicon will be. Because that fear-factor hold on elected Republicans is the only clout Trump really has – or has ever had, really.

  • chemical

    There’s only one reason I can see: to avert removal from office in an impeachment trial. It makes perfect sense when you think it through. As long as Trump keeps #Cult45 revved up, surviving congressional Republicans, particularly in the Senate, will remain his hostages…

    I respectfully disagree with this part. Given that Bill Clinton gained popularity in wake of the impeachment attempt made on him and many GOP reps/Senators would face a tough primary challenge for voting against Trump, I seriously doubt Trump gets impeached barring some rock-solid evidence out of the Mueller investigation, and even then it’s iffy. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just unlikely. These days, nothing is for certain.

    Trump will seek re-election. His ego won’t allow him not to — the mindless screaming of the sycophants is too much for him to resist. There is no planning a legal or political strategy here, just Trump attempting to satiate his near-infinite ego. There is no chess match being played here; Trump is playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    While Thomas Jefferson may have a point, I fully believe the difference between “completing” a revolution (ie: knowing what to do after the old government is overthrown vs being overthrown in turn) and not is found in the purpose and the maturity of those undertaking the original revolution.

    If (as was the case in 1776) the revolution is for specific stated principles, mutually agreed upon and then honored after the fighting is over, the revolution will likely have been “completed successfully”. If (as would be the case should red-cappers revolt) the revolution is undertaken out of a sense of thwarted entitlement or revenge, or some other emotionally-fueled excuse to take up arms, then the revolution will almost certainly fail.

    Emotionally-based revolts are almost certain to fail for several reasons that combine to produce massive disasters. Some (but by no means all) of these reasons are:

    1) Emotions cannot be sustained for long periods of time and (over time), emotion-fueled actions fizzle out as the emotions fueling them die down or become exhausted.

    2) Anger / jealousy / envy / etc are known as “destructive” emotions for a reason: they can be easily harnessed to destroy but are virtually impossible to harness for the purpose of building.

    3) Emotion-fueled revolts are virtually always begun by the most volatile personalities long before the more level-headed people feel that all other avenues of resolution are exhausted. Thus, they are almost always instances of premature violence that turn would-be supporters into opponents that then become perceived as part of “the enemy” that must be “destroyed”. Thus the “hotheads” wind up fighting a much more pitched battle than they would have done had reason led their actions rather than emotions. We’ve already seen cases of this with SJWs, BLM, Black Panthers and a host of other protest groups and domestic terrorists throughout the lifetime of our Republic.

    4) Emotion-fueled revolts are often carried out by “followers” or “victims” – those that are less-educated and therefore unwilling or unable to distinguish between true reason and professional agitators that are only looking to sow dissent, dissatisfaction, and chaos – basically the “useful idiots” of society while those that are the real schemers and planners stay safely away from the violence with plausible deniability, making plans to take over either once the existing government is destabilized or making plans to take over as part of a “pacification effort” against the very insurrection they initiated.

    5) Any revolt that is initiated based on emotion will terminate with even higher levels of emotion – levels so high that reason cannot be heard and the worst possible choices presented with the most emotional verbiage and aggression are the most likely to be the ones controlling how the replacement government is structured. This government (based on hatred, envy, suspicion, etc) will quickly fall as emotions cool down and the people realize the oppression they have invited into their lives. By then it is often too late, with little to do against a dictatorial government but plan yet another revolution to try to return control of the country to the people.

    I don’t think anyone here is arguing that Trump’s cult is based on reason or logic. The sentiment that we’ve likely heard from many of them that goes like: “Trump commands the military and the military have guns and nukes!” should be sufficient evidence that Trump’s cult are not the deepest thinkers in the country.

  • You bet. War is only a stage in a revolution. Afterwards what was fought for must be secured. Though it should be noted that in a nation such as ours, there is no need to fight a war since the Constitution provides the means for a peaceful revolution through Article V. But as the Declaration of Independence states: Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…

    If you haven’t seen them already, some of the writings by John Adams may interest you and/or others on this subject.

    “…Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. When the people once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their right of defending the limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” ~John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams (1775)

    “But what do We mean by the American Revolution? Do We mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People. A Change in their Religious Sentiments of their Duties and Obligations. …

    In this Research, the Glorioroles of Individual Gentlemen and of Separate States is of little Consequence. The Means and the Measures are the proper Objects of Investigation. These may be of Use to Posterity, not only in this Nation, but in South America, and all other Countries. They may teach Mankind that Revolutions are no Trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken rashly; nor without deliberate Consideration and Sober Reflection; nor without a Solid, immutable, eternal foundation of Justice and Humanity; nor without a People possesed of Intelligence, Fortitude and Integrity Sufficient to carry them with Steadiness, Patience, and Perseverance, through all the Vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery Tryals and Melancholly Disasters they may have to encounter.” John Adams, letter to Hezekiah Nigel (1818)

  • John225

    Any such revolt would likely involve 2nd amendmentists. Maria Butina the Russian spy who seems to have arrived at a plea deal for acting as an undeclared agent of a foreign power (covert spy) was trying to infiltrate the NRA. Her success in this endeavor is denied by the NRA. Maria and her Russian handler (a member of Putin’s senate) attended events for million plus donors to the NRA. There are no such “donations” on the books. The implication hinted at is that the NRA could have been a conduit for Russian funds to directly support the Trump campaign. The NRA contributed more to Trumps campaign that any other candidate before him ($31 million). When Butina questioned then candidate Trump it was about discontinuing US sanctions on Russia. If the NRA was laundering Russian money into the Trump campaign they would have many avenues to hide and disguise the transaction. Luring high ranking NRA officials to Moscow would have exposed them to being put in compromising situations. The NRA would be an attractive target for the Russians. It sits on one side of a contentious issue which is polarizing and divisive and has an already radical element, so it fit’s nicely with their socially disruptive tactics. It is a politically active right wing organization with imbedded political connections that can be exploited (like Paul Erickson). This would have created many networking opportunities for a young, attractive, and flirtatious women in a world of men. Synergies between Russian interests and right-wing nationalism would allow pro-Russian actions to be more easily and credibly explained and attract much less suspicion than if such things were coming from the left. All this is of course highly speculative.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I think you raise many good points. Thank you for the excellent analysis concerning laundering money into the Trump campaign. I had not previously considered that angle of potential Russian support for Trump.

  • WW

    This might be speculation but I think this line of thought has some merit. In 2012 the NRA donated 12 million to Romney. We will see.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    “light and transient causes….” do NOT (contrary to Trump’s rhetoric and red-capper/outraged Democrat belief) include emotional frustration due to thwarted entitlement or loss of political power or even (non-) jail-time for corrupt political “leaders”.

  • Barros Serrano

    Can you really compare Clinton to the Orange Fuhrer? Clinton’s impeachment issue was lying about sex… that’s it.

    Trumpolini, on the other hand, is increasingly revealed as the perpetrator of multiple felonies and yes treason. Already, before the final report from Mueller, we are aware of enough to warrant an Orange Removal.

    the GOP has been so nasty, so corrupt, so bought-off, so treasonous, for so long, that even Trumpolini’s worst excesses seem to them to be somehow acceptable.

    People forget that the Revolution was fought to FREE us, and according to Jefferson that meant free us from the abuses of the wealthy, not only of King and Parliament. As long as we have a Party (the GOP) slavishly serving only corporate interests, the Revolution’s realization is impeded.

    Get the corporate money out of politics and watch how fast things change. And notice which Party most strenuously objects to doing that…

  • chemical

    I’m not saying that Clinton lying about sex is comparable to Trump. I’m saying that he gained popularity after the impeachment attempt on him failed. It’s likely that Trump will gain popularity if the house goes through impeachment proceedings and he’s not actually removed from office.

    My original comment as 19 days ago. Since then the stocks have taken a turn for the worse. Trump has started costing the GOP donor class money with his stupid trade wars and tariffs, which makes impeachment more likely.

  • Barros Serrano

    Already the clear evidence of Trumpolini’s wrongdoing is sufficient cause to abandon him. Those who have not are only demonstrating their own very low ethical sense. Anyone still supporting him after impeachment is initiated prefers a dictator over the law, and cares nothing for anything we can call “ethics”.

    It is a sad state of affairs we have now in this country but it did not begin with Trumpolini. We can trace it back to the 1980’s, GOPAC, Gingrich, the snarky greasy-pompadoured President of those years, the adoption by the GOP of the philosophy that only winning matters, only the interests of their corporate buyers matters, ideology is everything…

    They are thereby endangering democracy and freedom here.