Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 26, 2019

The House Will Not Vote On Impeachment. It Will Censure Trump.

The live TV impeachment inquiry circus is for now over.  The procedural parts are ready to begin. Both sides, the Republicans and Democrats, will have to decide which tactical moves they will now make.

Adam Schiff, who presided over the investigative part, wrote to his colleagues that he wants to immediately move forward:

As required under House Resolution 660, the Committees are now preparing a report summarizing the evidence we have found this far, which will be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess.
...
Chairman Nadler and the Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee will proceed in the next phase of the impeachment inquiry.

Nadler will write up articles of impeachment which will be referred to the whole House to vote on them. No Republican is likely to vote for impeaching Trump. It would be political suicide to do so. The Democrats have 233 Representatives and need 218 votes for a majority decision. They can afford a few abstentions but not too many.

At least one House Democrat, Brenda Lawrence from the swing state Michigan, has said that she will no longer support impeachment but that she prefers to censure the president instead of impeaching him. A censure is a formal reprimand by a majority vote that has no further consequences.

More are likely to follow that path as several recent polls show that impeachment is no longer en vogue:

The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose impeaching President Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That’s a 6-point swing in support from October, when 48 percent of voters supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed.

More importantly, the poll shows more independents now oppose impeachment than support it, a significant change from Emerson's polling in October. The new poll found 49 percent oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of independents polled supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed.

Since October, Emerson has found Trump’s job approval rating jump by 5 points, from 43 percent to 48 percent.

This is the second poll this week to show voters are increasingly likely to oppose impeachment, ..

Even Democrats are losing interest in the issue. There is also this curious issue:

Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher - 13:32 UTC · Nov 26, 2019

CNN Poll: There is a *forty* point gender gap with regards to impeaching and removing Trump.
Men oppose impeachment 40-53 while women favor it 61-34.
That's a pretty stunning contrast.

If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?

  • If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
  • If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
  • If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will be over.
  • If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.

The Republican led Senate has two choices:

  • It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment. Trump wins.
  • It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.

Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.

During impeachment the whole Senate sits as the High Court. The House of Representatives sends 'managers' who act as prosecutors. The chief justice of the U.S. presides. A vote for impeachment at the end of the trial requires a two-third majority.

The Republican majority in the Senate could use such a trial to bring disarray into the Democrats' primary. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet are all senators and Democratic primary candidates. They would probably have to stop campaigning to attend the trials. Another leading Democratic candidate would be a top witness.

The Republican senators would immediately call up a number of people for questioning. These would include Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, his business partner Devon Archer, John Kerry who was Secretary of State when Biden intervened for Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky and of course the CIA spy and (not-)whistleblower Erik Ciaramella. It would also be of interest to hear how deep the former CIA director John Brennan was involved in the issue.

The Senators could use the impeachment trial to dig into all the crimes the Democrats under Obama committed in Ukraine. They would concentrate not on the Maidan coup but on the aftermath when the deals were made. There surely is a lot of dirt out there and it is not only Joe Biden's.

Then there is Russiagate. Did the Obama administration use illegal means to spy on the Trump campaign? As the issue is related to whatever Trump did there is good reason to include it into the trial.

The circus the Senate would open if the House votes for impeachment would play for many many months. The media would be full of this or that crime some Democrat or deep state actor supposedly committed. All this would play out during the election season.

An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.

I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen. But she will have to do some serious talking to convince the party that a vote on impeachment is not the best way to proceed.

The only sensible alternative is to censure Trump and that is why it is likely the way Nancy Pelosi will want to go. A partisan vote to censure Trump will do no damage to him but the Democrats would have at least done 'something' - even if it was only gesturing.

The whole impeachment show did little damage to Trump. His approval numbers are still fine. The show has given Trump another chance to run as the underdog who will drain the swamp in Washington DC. A major Democratic candidate is now damaged goods. Joe Biden no longer has any chance to win the presidency and it would be astonishing if he survives the primaries. The U.S. relations with the Ukraine have also been seriously damaged.

All this was easily predictable two months ago when the Democrats launched their impeachment show:

Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats will (again) try to find vague dirt with which they can tarnish Trump. This is a huge political mistake. It will help Trump to win his reelection.

After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia they now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will motivate them to vote for him.

The Democrats should ask themselves how they put themselves into the current situation. Who was the genius who came up with the (not-)whistleblower idea and pushed for the move. The shallow-brained Adam Schiff? The devious John Brennan?

Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to their party.

Posted by b on November 26, 2019 at 19:41 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

> when Biden intervened for Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky

Was he?
It was reported that in 2011 Zlochevsky sold his shares in Burisma to Igor Kolomoisky, one of benefactors of EuroMaidan and current president Zelensky

So, repeated pinning down of Zlochevsky is a device to hise Kolomoisky's role

Posted by: Arioch | Nov 28 2019 10:42 utc | 101

William Gruff @ 69

This is a brilliant analysis of kayfabe as total immersion propaganda (a term used by Jacques Ellul). TIP can only be used when all info sources in the society are under authoritarian control. But that happened here by Y2K. Just look at the chart of the six owners of 90% of all media. Comcast, Disney, and Sony are Hollywood-oriented companies, obviously. So is Time Warner, which owns WB, TBS, CNN, Cinemax.

I had been confused by the chaos of kayfabe, and did not see it as fitting the Ellul paradigm. You pointed out that movie plots allow one to take a backbearing (in the John LeCarre sense) on what the TIP is conditioning the population to accept inside its propaganda bubble.

I think you explain exactly why TPTB hate Trump so much: he is mucking up their expensive propaganda efforts.

This is how we know the whole kayfabe show has gone completely FUBAR. The messaging is conflicting too much with what is going on in the pro wrestling ring in Washington. The announcers' play-by-play descriptions of the action are not matching what people see happening in the ring. The audience's tolerance for the degree of suspension of disbelief necessary to continue pretending that the political fight is real is in decline.

Thanks for delivering a most interesting comment before I was too stuffed with T-giving dinner to appreciate it.

Posted by: john brewster | Nov 28 2019 15:18 utc | 102

i really liked what @69 william gruff stated in that post as well.. we've gone off script!

Posted by: james | Nov 28 2019 20:09 utc | 103

The commentary here seems to indicate the audience leans "left". They seem to think that the corporatocracy rules without any say from government. It is rather a marriage of the two at the expense of the rest of us.

It's a fascistic blend. Without government promising FREE STUFF for all private sector parties, they'd get no votes to continue the charade of "democracy". The welfare/warfare state would not exist.

Posted by: Trutherator | Nov 29 2019 9:51 utc | 104

Another vote for William Gruff's analysis of our media, it's all bullshit, and meant to be that way too. Real news fucks up the buying mood and trashes the propaganda narrative.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 29 2019 12:22 utc | 105

Wm Gruff @69

In prior comments, Gruff has agreed with me that the US President is selected but contends that Hillary was supposed to be President - not Trump. This conveniently confers legitimacy on Trump's Presidency and conflicts with what I see as fundamental, iron-clad logic:

> USA's 'Imperial Presidency' is too important to EVER allow a democratic choice;

> Bush Sr., Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama all had ties to CIA - and some speculate that Trump may also because of his purchase of a certain casino (rumored to be where CIA laundered money), and his employment of an FBI counter-intelligence mole;

> Trump's polices are center-right and pro-establishment (like tax cuts and increased military spending) - much like Hillary;

> Kissinger's 2014 WSJ Op-Ed called for something very much like MAGA to meet the challenge from Russia and China;

> Hillary made mistakes in her 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would have made: she snubbed Sanders and his progressive base, ignored the black vote, disrespected whites ("deplorables") and chose not to campaign in the THREE STATES that she KNEW would decide the election.

> Trump has brought into his Administration friends and associates of people who were highly critical of him: VP Pence was good friends with John McCain, Wm Barr is good friends with Robert Mueller, CIA Director Haspel is supported by John Brennan; John Bolton is a neocon (who were adamently 'NEVER TRUMP')

Gruff fails to see, or doesn't care to see, that everything changed in 2013-14 when Russia began to protect it's interests. First in Syria, then in Ukraine. Suddenly, the US Deep State began to take the Russia-China SCO alliance seriously. Soon after USA termed Russia and China "recidivist powers" and characterized them as the greatest threat to the nation. The new Cold War had begun.

@69 Gruff continues to develop his Trump-was-not-intended POV by incorporating kayfabe into the analysis. Sure, there's kayfabe he intones, but its nothing to worry about. It's NOT a mechanism of control but a desperate move that comes from a loss of control!

However, this POV fails because:

> much of the kayfabe originates with Trump, who is a master of kayfabe and learned it from his time with WWE;

> hanging the kayfabe around Hillary's neck is weak as it ignores the role of a dozen or more senior intelligence and security officials (officials that would naturally rally around an anti-China, anti-Russia agenda);

> Gruff ignores how Russiagate has created a neo-McCarthyism and ignores the desirability of neo-McCarthyism to a neocon/Deep State that seeks global domination. Neo-McCarthyism is key to keeping dissent down and the European poodles in line.


Lastly, Gruff claims that kayfabe is a failure, saying:
the whole kayfabe show has gone completely FUBAR. The messaging is conflicting too much with what ... the capitalists who finance the whole kayfabe show want to see happen, so we know that this is not part of the plan.

This seems to make some sense ... except that it's completely false. Virtually ALL of USA (and I would argue, the West as a whole) haven't seen through the kayfabe. Disappointment with the Democratic impeachment proceedings doesn't mean that people see the kayfabe! Even at moa where people are more knowledgeable and more cyncial than most, I've been a lonely voice when talking about kayfabe. UNTIL NOW! Somehow the damn broke and THIS post got a lot of people (finally) voicing their disgust at the process and (finally) seeing kayfabe.

By pinning kayfabe on the evil Queen and poking fun at it, Gruff hopes to squash talk of kayfabe. And THAT is definitely something that "the capitalists who finance the whole kayfabe show" would prefer.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 29 2019 14:40 utc | 106

What if Trump instructed Republicans in the House to vote FOR impeachment in order to take advantage of a Senate trial?

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 29 2019 15:52 utc | 107

Look JR, just because you cant see beyond the Hegelian dialectic you are locked in does not mean others wont. Interestingly enough (or not), KayFabe may derive from a fellow named Fabian, name of that Brit country club, The Fabian Society, famous for exporting Hegelian dialectic (itself rooted in Freemasonry) to the New World. Ah yes, Tammany Hall..

Posted by: Lozion | Nov 29 2019 19:19 utc | 108

Jackrabbit @ 106

My position is that Trump is a creature of the Deep State, although not totally housebroken. I wrote about it last week:

Trump is to America what ISIS was to Syria - Orange ISIS
Posted by: john brewster | Nov 24 2019 22:03 utc | 27

Join next two lines to get URL:
ache-tee-pee-pee-ess ://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/
the-moon-of-alabama-week-in-review-ot-2019-69-/comments/page/1/#comments

That said, I think that there is a genuine war going on within the Deep State, between nationalists favoring autarky and neoliberal globalists. Deep politics in such a faction fight is anything but black and white, with all kinds of factions fighting to forward their agenda.

I think that Trump is seriously different than HRC and that his victory was unexpected by the globalist wing. If HRC had been elected, we would have gone to war with Russia over Syria or over Ukraine. We would have continued with TPP and other global trade agreements. Instead, Trump has destroyed the multilateral trade agreements and sabotaged the "maximum pressure" campaign against Russia. So, I agree with William Gruff that Trump was unexpected by at least the globalist wing of the DS.

I think that the globalists were trapped in a bubble; that they didn't see how lackluster HRC's campaign was; that they didn't appreciate how much here neocon warmongering turned off the progressive wing of the party, on top of sabotaging Sanders; that they didn't appreciate the impact of her health issues; that they weren't paying attention to the electoral college angle; that they were already planning forward with how an HRC administration was going to further implement neoliberal globalization and neocon warfare. This "insouciance", plus HRC and the media's maneuvering to make the "easily beatable" Trump her opponent, gave the nationalists an opening just big enough to eke out an EC win. (Of course, we could argue that all the voting machines were rigged and the entire election outcome was predetermined. But then what's the point of arguing about "politics" in such an environment?)

So, IMHO, both you and WG have some truth in your corner. However, I find your complaints against WG to be largely assertions connected to conclusions by faulty logic or no logic at all.

----

contends that Hillary was supposed to be President - not Trump. This conveniently confers legitimacy on Trump's Presidency

Excuse me, but this is the "law of the excluded middle" fallacy. In the real world of politics, as opposed to Aristotelian logic, rejecting A does not automatically mean accepting not A. A person claiming that (some part of) the DS wanted HRC to win does not automatically prove that person is in favor of Trump. There is massive evidence for media promotion of HRC's candidacy and the sabotage of her competitors. Your construction of "conferring legitmacy" is a mere assertion, implicitly based on the excluded middle. It resembles the Stalinist trope of the "objective enemy".

----

everything changed in 2013-14 when Russia began to protect it's interests.

You state this fact, but you do not immediately (or ever) connect it to your objections to what Gruff wrote. How does it connect with your idea that WG rejects that Trump is DS? If Trump is DS, why is he sabotaging their drive to war with Russia?

----

much of the kayfabe originates with Trump, who is a master of kayfabe and learned it from his time with WWE

I disagree with your assignment of causation. There are immense piles of wedge issue kayfabes that were not started by Trump. The #MeToo/pussyhat crap, of which Trump was a major target; the Syrian gas attack lies; the entire Mueller investigation. All of those phony issues were manufactured to get Trump, not appreciating that Trump was quite capable of deflecting those issues. These issues were manufactured precisely because the Dems are as guilty as Trump on many substantive issues, so honest political arguments were self-incriminating. Therefore, these phony kayfabe issues (and all the media propaganda air time to launch them) were manufactured to "get" Trump on issues which it could be argued that the Dems are not guilty of the same things.

----

SIDE POINT: At some point, the looseness of the definition of kayfabe makes it hard to distinguish it from the normal double-dealing, Byzantine, wedge-issue corruption of our politics. Where exactly is the line between kayfabe and Democratic Party support for the more extreme manifestations of the Social Justice Warrior agenda? AFAICT, the phony-liberal platform of the DP (a caricature confirming every right wing trope of the last 50 years) is complete kayfabe.

----

Gruff ignores how Russiagate has created a neo-McCarthyism and ignores the desirability of neo-McCarthyism to a neocon/Deep State that seeks global domination. Neo-McCarthyism is key to keeping dissent down and the European poodles in line.

Again, what does this statement have to do with what WG said? (Obviously, McCarthyism isn't WGs issue, since you state he ignored it.) Are you claiming that Trump generated the neo-Russophobia that has been used to derail his foreign policy? That his whole "no foreign wars" shtick is completely kayfabe? Then, by Occam's Razor, why wouldn't the DS simply have elected HRC and run the same neo-McCarthyite campaign to shut up people who are sick of the forever war?

----

Virtually ALL of USA (and I would argue, the West as a whole) haven't seen through the kayfabe. Disappointment with the Democratic impeachment proceedings doesn't mean that people see the kayfabe!

This is another assertion that you fail to provide evidence for. Every individual I talk to, whether they are right, left, or apolitical is quite clear that the current politics is a pile of distracting bullshit and that the news media are completely corrupt. They might not call it kayfabe, but they know it is more of the same sellout politics this country has been saddled with since the time of Reagan. My assertion is every bit as based on evidence of yours.

----

Basically, my reaction to your criticism of WG is Hitchen's Razor:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Posted by: john brewster | Nov 30 2019 5:50 utc | 109

I wonder sometimes if Trump did something 'a little naughty' but not really impeachable in the Ukraine business just to goad the Democrats into launching the impeachment inquiry. As pointed out in the article, if you game out all the likely paths this could take, Trump comes out ahead in all of them - it is only in the most unlikely path that he loses.

Posted by: ian | Nov 30 2019 7:22 utc | 110

john brewster @109

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I was thinking very much along the same lines as you only about 2 years ago. As such, it's probably best to highlight where we differ in our thinking.

1) You fail to give proper weight to the incredible degree to which things are gamed and propagandized. This is possible because 80% of MSM is owned by 6 corporations. When the Deep State wants people to believe something, its almost palpable. One stark example is the White Helmets which is funded by UK, US, and UK/US allies.

Another example is Russiagate, which most assert was tied to Trump's candidacy but which I assert should be considered as being a goal separate from Trump. In other words, if there was no Trump, or even no election, the Deep State would've been looking for a way to implement a new McCarthyism because it greatly supports their anti-Russia&China efforts.

2) Your "globalist wing of the Deep State" makes little sense to me. Many people talk about such things as "factions of the elite" without defining what they mean by that. My view is that the Deep State and the "factions" are actually different. IMO the Deep State is a set of managers. They ACT collectively and by agreement. In this view, the President is a member of the team, not a separate power center him/herself.

It makes no sense for a President to be at war with the Deep State when he's a part of the Deep State!

In 2014 (when the next President was being decided), the 'Deep State' would've consisted of people like Brennan, McCain, Hillary & Bill, Joe Biden, Mueller, Bush Sr. These are "untouchables" with long histories together. They are largely above politics, even if some have political roles to play. They guide the country and get input from "factions" like neocons and industry groups.

This is a more stable system than a single individual as President.

One might think of the President as essentially the head political officer or Deep State spokesperson instead of as an all-powerful head of government and Commander-in-Chief as most Americans think of him.

This view of the Deep State as primary will strike most Americans as strange. But think about Trump's telling us that he felt that he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Why was he feeling such power? I'd guess it's because he had the blessing of the Deep State.

3) You accept the canard that Hillary is very different from Trump. I don't see that at all. Hillary is much more practical than such a view gives her credit for and the DEEP STATE rules, not the President.

She would not have gone to war. She would've done much the same thing that Trump has done. She's not crazy, she's crazy like a fox.

4) Your view of the primacy of US electoral politics wrt the choice of President. You fail to take note of my pointing out the connections between US Presidents and the CIA. That's not a mistake. And it makes great sense. If you're a Deep State asshat then you want to KNOW that a potential President will play ball. Why leave anything up to chance?

Your questions

I find some of your questions are loaded and/or not well framed. Nevertheless, they form a basis for further illumination.

... rejecting A does not automatically mean accepting not A ...

If Hillary threw the election because that's the Deep State wanted MAGA nationalist Trump to win, then Trump is illegitimate. Not because he wasn't "elected" but because the race was a farce.

If Trump is DS, why is he sabotaging their drive to war with Russia?

Well, he's not sabotaging it. You are just regurgitating MSM drivel. Do yourself a favor and stop accepting MSM narratives without question.

Trump is no friend to Russia, and he's not 'at war' with USA's Deep State.

There are immense piles of wedge issue kayfabes ...

Well, you're right that the Democrats also engage in kayfabe too but I'm referencing things that Trump is personally responsible for. Like asking Nancy Pelosi to come to the oval office to discuss his 'Wall' when she was contending for Speaker of the House. That exposure helped to overcome the many objections to Pelosi's having yet another term as Speaker.

Pick a fight and you (as President) direct people's attention to a certain issue or personality.

what does this ... [neo-McCarthyism] have to do with what WG said?

Neo-McCarthyism is an off-shoot of Russiagate, which was founded on the suspicion that Trump is compromised. It would've been difficult (not impossible, but awkward) to have Hillary take the role of compromised nationalist.

'America First' Trump helped to get Russiagate started by hiring Manafort and appealing to Russia/Putin to release Hillary's emails.

Why did 'America First' Trump hire Manafort who had been working in Ukraine for nearly a decade? Manafort had no recent experience with US politics - but he got picked for a Presidential campaign?!? Well, as it turns out, Manafort's work in Ukraine was for pro-Russian parties and CIA was unhappy about that. Trump's inexplicable hiring of Manafort conveniently helped to further Russiagate AND ultimately got Manafort a jail sentence.

Hillary's email's contained highly classified material and any publication would be considered a crime by USA, yet 'America First' Trump publicly urged Russia to publish them.

Every individual I talk to [sees] current politics is a pile of distracting bullshit ... They might not call it kayfabe, but they know it is more of the same sellout politics ...

It's likely that you talk to right-leaning people and they see the Democrats as sellouts.

Kayfabe is "moch combat". Virtually no one sees kayfabe. They see the OTHER SIDE as corrupt and damn fools. Very few can see that media divides us and certain powerful politicians engage in "battles" that are not sincere.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I've said many times in prior comments on this subject that I don't have a smoking gun that PROVES that my POV is correct. It's not likely that powerful people are going to be so careless as to allow us to find such a smoking gun, is it?

But not having a smoking gun doesn't mean there's no evidence. It just means that it's more difficult to make the case AND that case isn't air-tight.

Those who agree with me do so on the basis of logic, common sense, and a good understanding of American History.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 30 2019 7:43 utc | 111

Wow you are not digesting the info available very well.

Dems will impeach president, Repubs will acquit in the Senate. The hearings may or may not move the needle a little. Certainly not a lot.

Nothing that trump does will take him out of his 35-45 percent support unless the Republican Party all decides in lockstep to drop on the eve of the Senate vote. Which although that’s the only way he gets removed WONT HAPPEN.

Also nothing the Dems will do will take them out of their 40-45 support.

1) Turnout of voters and c) where independents fall will decide the 2020 elections; same as ever since the 2010 hyper partisan era began.

Posted by: Dre | Nov 30 2019 17:40 utc | 112

Jackrabbit @ 111

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite reply. I appreciate conversations that don't automatically turn into hand-to-hand comment. I accept your final comment:

I've said many times in prior comments on this subject that I don't have a smoking gun that PROVES that my POV is correct. It's not likely that powerful people are going to be so careless as to allow us to find such a smoking gun, is it?

I myself believe in the old saw about government:

Those who talk don't know, and those who know don't talk.

So I agree that we peasants will never have a correct picture. Deals at the top table are done with Kissingerian winks and nods, or the classified documents immediately go into the paper shredders.

1) You fail to give proper weight to the incredible degree to which things are gamed and propagandized.

I gave that exact stat in my earlier post.

john brewster @ 102

Just look at the chart of the six owners of 90% of all media. Comcast, Disney, and Sony are Hollywood-oriented companies, obviously. So is Time Warner, which owns WB, TBS, CNN, Cinemax.

Why is the idea that six owners (or groups of owners - i.e. factions within factions) could form factions and fight (genuinely, not kayfabe) any less believable than your idea that they reach consensus?

----

2) Your "globalist wing of the Deep State" makes little sense to me. Many people talk about such things as "factions of the elite" without defining what they mean by that. My view is that the Deep State and the "factions" are actually different. IMO the Deep State is a set of managers. They ACT collectively and by agreement. In this view, the President is a member of the team, not a separate power center him/herself.

Your argument sounds like my (very limited) understanding of Carol Quigley's version of the Milner/Rhodes Round Table. Quigley was deeply involved in what was then called "The Power Elite". His book, "Tragedy and Hope", is 1300 pages long (there is a PDF version available for free on the net) and very nuanced. Unfortunately, it has been used as the basis for conspiracy theories since it was published. The fact that it contains massive commentary by Cleon Skousen, Glen Beck's mentor, just ads fuel to the CT fire.

One of the popularizations (i.e., more easily twisted into CT) is "The Yankee-Cowboy Wars" by Carl Oglesby.
Combine two lines for URL:
ache-tpss://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?9223-The-
Yankee-and-Cowboy-War&s=e27a197496105cda1ddeaa3af254caf8

My personal opinion lies more along Oglesby's theory than Quigley's theory (more later). Given that the argument between conspiracy of managers versus conspiracy of factions has been ongoing for over 50 years, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. And, that's fine with me. Like you, I know I'm not going to convince you; but the conversation helps me find new facts to support my POV.

The crux of our difference is your belief in a centralized conspiracy, ala the Round Table, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Rothschilds, etc. (I'm not saying you believe in any of those in particular.) versus my belief in classic political factions.

From my POV, the US is a gigantic country with many power centers - Wall St., the oil patch, the Pentagon, Big Pharma. New players show up every decade: Walmart, Silicon Valley, Amazon. IMHO, getting all those people on the same page just seems impossible to me these days (as opposed to Milner era, or even Quigley era). Why? Because neoliberalism (aka laissez faire 2.0) has destroyed the social structures that made reaching a consensus more successful than a Hobbesian war of all against all. People have been socialized to be hyper-individualistic, and the society has lionized sociopathic asset strippers, loan sharks, sweatshoppers, slum lords, and con men. I just don't believe that a secret managerial elite consensus could survive being populated by the kind of animals we have been creating for the last forty years.

Why are there no factions in your managerial DS? How are troublemakers/terminal greedy assholes(TGA) screened out? Are you saying that Trump is going to behave, stop being a TGA, in such a mileau?

Another question. How does your MDS initiate new members, such as Gates or Bezos? When they arrive on the scene, are they instantly convinced to join your MDS? Or does the MDS only allows people it has already vetted to become powerful billionaires? The latter hypothesis makes the economy sound as completely puppeted as our politics, in which candidates are literally vetted before they are funded. (Plus, no one saw Bill Gates coming. He screwed over IBM, and they didn't know what hit them. No way he was vetted.) Although vetting does seem true in the case of clowns like Zuckerberg (and a lot of the so-called unicorn con men like WeWork), who was basically made a billionaire via a private sale on Wall St. Still, the level of deceit and game playing Zuck exhibited to steal the Facebook code and con people into believing he respected their privacy shows he is a natural member of the DS.

----

3) You accept the canard that Hillary is very different from Trump. I don't see that at all. Hillary is much more practical than such a view gives her credit for and the DEEP STATE rules, not the President.

She would not have gone to war. She would've done much the same thing that Trump has done. She's not crazy, she's crazy like a fox.

We just agree to disagree here. HRC (aka cackles, for her comments about Gadaffi) is a rabid, bloodthirsty warmonger. She is a neocon. (From my POV, she was an acceptable candidate to the globalist/neocon faction.) She would have used America's military to accomplish Israel's ends, and let America take the hit - just as we did in Iraq. Because, like Rumsfeld, she believes that a military is there to be used. No way she would have backed off Syria. She would have doubled down in true neocon style.

----

4) Your view of the primacy of US electoral politics wrt the choice of President. You fail to take note of my pointing out the connections between US Presidents and the CIA. That's not a mistake. And it makes great sense. If you're a Deep State asshat then you want to KNOW that a potential President will play ball. Why leave anything up to chance?

Your comment is based upon your POV. From my POV, the connection is between a candidate and a faction of the DS. Trump was acceptable to the MIC and the nationalists.

-----

Bottom line: our disagrement comes from our premises, which cannot be proven or disproven.

----

Your questions:

1. If Hillary threw the election...

My position is that she blew the election, not that she threw it.

2. Well, he's not sabotaging it....

He is behaving semi-rationally in the case of Russia. Russia has played its hand well. It defeated us in Syria and the Ukraine. Trump is acknolwedging that defeat, even as he seeks to salvage the wreckage (e.g., by the armed robbery east of the Euphrates). HRC would have just pushed forward with a no fly zone.

3. wedge issue kayfabes...

No comment.

4. Neo-McCarthyism is an off-shoot of Russiagate, which was founded on the suspicion that Trump is compromised. It would've been difficult (not impossible, but awkward) to have Hillary take the role of compromised nationalist.

Yeah, I thought that would be what it would look like to you, given your POV. And, it is true, but only if you take your time frame as January, 2016. Unfortunately for that theory, the Russia hate had started back in 2008, with the abortive Georgia war; and then it escalated with the 2014 Ukranian coup d'etat and the Russian intervention in Syria. We had been doing ten minute hates against Putin for years. We had been de-platforming honest scholars, like Stephen Cohen, as Russian apologists for years. All that happened long before Trump came on the scene.

--------

Okay, got to wrap this up. Apologies for any unanswered points. (We have house guests for the holiday, and I have been unable to complete this until late. Sorry.) I am trying to get a solid understanding of your POV from all this back and forth.

Can you say what caused you, since two years ago, to move from your old POV (which you say is my current) to your new POV?


Posted by: john brewster | Dec 1 2019 6:21 utc | 113

john brewster @113

conspiracy of interests instead of conspiracy of managers

Although the managerial system has some drawbacks (as you've noted) I think in practice what we is a hierarchy that effectively creates a consensus-based managerial system. There are certain people who, after long service and building the right connections, are treated as being above reproach. Although barely noticed, these people have great influence. People like: the Clintons, John McCain (before he passed away), George Bush Sr. (before he passed away), Robert Mueller, John Brennan. Hillary may cackle at the death of Quadaffi, and John McCain may support Jihadi's in Syria but they are never held accountable for such behavior.

What do you suppose these people thought about Russia's defense of her interests in Syria and Ukraine in 2014? I think their assumptions that Russia would eventually join the West were shattered. Kissinger, whom many of them admire, has term the threat to this presumed World Order a "grave danger".

Can you say what caused ... your new POV?

I recognized that Trump's faux populism is similar to Obama's.

Like Obama, Trump is said to be an "outsider", and the apologist of each of these Presidents tell us that they play 11-dimensional chess. Also, each was/is beset by crazy critics that question their loyalty to America.

And I recognized that Kissinger's 2014 WSJ Op-Ed was a declaration of (Cold) War (I wrote a comment saying so in fall 2014).

Then other realizations occurred that supported the view: Presidential connections to CIA (pre-screened 'team players'); Obama's deference to CIA/NSA; Trump's picks for his administration (Pence was close to McCain, John Brennan supported, Gina Haspel for CIA Director, John Bolton's neocon comrades were 'NEVER TRUMP', Wm Barr is close with Mueller, etc.).

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 1 2019 14:49 utc | 114

Thanks for all your comments.

From time to time I review my stance on Deep Politics (Peter Dale Scott's coinage). Clearly the public has been blatantly lied to, and evidence has been destroyed since at least the JFK assassination. I review DP somewhat to see if any new evidence has turned up, but mostly to see how much DP is creeping into the public consciousness. I have to say that there has been quite an advance of awareness over the last two years.

We agree to disagree on management versus faction, but I think we agree that the media narrative is complete propaganda, elections are pre-rigged frauds, and the public is effectively disenfranchised.

----

I have one final question. On the basis of what you believe, how can one act in the world to oppose this unelected, brutal lying secret government? Given the power imbalance and the general public ignorance and apathy, what can be done? Just asking your opinion.

----

People like: the Clintons, John McCain..., George Bush Sr...., Robert Mueller, John Brennan...they are never held accountable for such behavior.

Yes, and that is disgusting. McCain is the first person since Thatcher that I could not refrain from slagging at his loathsomely overhyped, nauseatingly flag-waving funeral. I could not believe so-called liberals praising this cruel, arrogant, murderous asshole.

Posted by: john brewster | Dec 2 2019 5:03 utc | 115

The united States is a sham, but I guess you have to be outside to see it.They need a 1789 event :) to open their eyes. (I believe the French would be happy to supply the guillotines)

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Dec 2 2019 13:05 utc | 116

john brewster @115:

... how can one act in the world to oppose this unelected, brutal lying secret government?

There's actually been a lot of discussion about that over the years. I think the general consensus is that being aware and helping others to be aware is all one can do at this point because the public seems happy to go along for now.

Sadly, the public will not see through the farce until after financial calamity or war. The propaganda narratives are just too strong. Despite that, some see the US public as complicit in their own (eventual) demise, while others believe that the fault lies entirely with craven 'elites'.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 3 2019 23:24 utc | 117

"As people in Bolivia and elsewhere can attest the United States does not promote democracy. It promotes rightwing regimes and rogue capitalism."

"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election."

Our 'democracy' has been well defined for lomg enough. But because the half way house of representitive is so imperfect, gettin people to care for semi-direct is impossible. Ironically you are with the fascists if you want to listen to, and let the people decide too!

Posted by: Ilya G Poimandres | Dec 5 2019 22:54 utc | 118

« previous page

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Working...