Posted on 11/08/2018 11:18:27 AM PST by Paladin2
President Trump does not use guile and misinformation in his public statements, "just like any other public figure."
That's a total misrepresentation of the man, which I find very offensive. No - the genius of the man is that he uses the truth to unbalance and stymie his opponents. Its one of his signature traits - he does not lie.
You've seen the statements Trump has made about Sessions over the last two years. Those statements were completely without guile or twisted weasel words. He was totally blunt and straightforward in what he said about his disappointments in Sessions.
You're saying that he said one thing, but meant another. Go back and look at what he said and tell me there's any room to 'read between the lines.' There isnt any wiggle room in anything he said. He said he would have chosen someone else for AG if he'd known that Sessions would recuse.
That's a straight and unambiguous statement. There's no room for interpretation. He meant exactly what he said, every time he said it.
Sessions was a complete disaster. The President said it on multiple occasions, and now he's let him go. End of story.
Heh... Those folks truly are in the outer limits, aren’t they?
Oh now ya did it lol. The resident official thread spammer from the “safe space” threads will be along to use his sanctioned heckler’s veto and ruin this otherwise excellent post.
“Seems to me that it’s obvious that sessions supported Trump early and asked to be DOJ as an insurance policy for the GOPe.”
+1. I’d love to see the timeline.
It is interesting how sundance has gradually done a 180.
I recall seeing the Jeff Sessions glasses-down-nose beside Suspicious Cat looking... suspicious... far too many times there, coupled with sanguine, unsupported suppositions about Horowitz and Huber.
I am glad he finally and fully embraced reality, and he does good background research, but:
I am tired of being right about things like this right off the bat, yet being disparaged as a concern troll... or worse... by the credulous sycophants who end up being dead wrong.
I knew Sessions was somehow compromised the day after he was confirmed. I discounted all the sophistry to the contrary, because I know human nature and I have witnessed much history - but those like me were condemned as being cowardly or distrusting or negative or unpatriotic.
No: realistic.
Fully agree.
Reality can really bite.
“No, Jeff Sessions getting fired (requested resignation) today is not part of some grand plot to expose the Deep State; where Sessions role has ended and someone else now takes over.
Anyone who would make such a claim, in general terms, comes from the same small group who need to sell the original “Stealth Jeff”, “Slow Walker”, “Trust the Plan” fan fiction they have been theorizing for the past year. When the central element of their theory collapses, they either: (A) admit they are wrong; or (B) as in recent examples, reconcile the contradictory events by overlaying another bizarre layer to the theory to continue selling the nonsense, move the goalposts, and make the bizarre theory even more convoluted. Sadly, the latter approach is visible today.”
+1000
“I am tired of being right about things like this right off the bat, yet being disparaged as a concern troll... or worse... by the credulous sycophants who end up being dead wrong.
I knew Sessions was somehow compromised the day after he was confirmed. I discounted all the sophistry to the contrary, because I know human nature and I have witnessed much history - but those like me were condemned as being cowardly or distrusting or negative or unpatriotic.
No: realistic.”
Have been right there with you from the start. You know the WH petition, to fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Wray? Here:
Doxing myself: I started that petition. That’s my work.
“...he does not lie.”
That’s right - like I said, Trump does not lie. For the third time, I’m not calling him a liar, so knock ot off.
Trump uses guile, bluffs, misdirection, and the element of surprise on his adversaries - that’s just good negotiating practice - that does not make him dishonest, or deceitful, or a liar - that just makes him a good negotiator.
When you start a sale negotiation with an asking price 25% higher than what you’ll actually settle for, are you a liar? No, you are just a good negotiator. When you give the impression you are highly motivated to make a deal, when really, you could take it or leave it, are you a liar?, no. When the car salesman makes his “best offer”, and you start to walk out the door to see if you can get him lower, are you a liar? Is he a liar? No! It’s called haggling.
Trump uses guile and misdirection like any negotiator. If you think he doesn’t, you are just niaive.
Look, Trump is as honest as they come - in his personal relationships, I believe he is a confirmed truth teller. When he makes campaign promises to his constituents, he has proven to be a confirmed truth teller.
But when he’s tweeting to the general public or making official
statements - you have to consider the fact that he’s not just speaking to his supporters, he’s also speaking to his many adversaries. He is taking negotiating positions - as we want him to. He is fienting left and turning right. He uses slight of hand. He bluffs. He uses the element of surprise. That’s how he wins.
And you know I’m right, so please stop this adolescent ploy of trying to make it seem like I am calling Trump a liar, when you know I’m not.
You're so full of it. You implied that Trump didn't mean what he said, all those times he complained about Sessions, or that he meant something else.
That's not guile or misdirection. It's lying, and you're the one accusing him of it, not me. I took the President at his word when he said, "I don't have an Attorney General."
You've now run your mouth for miles and miles about this, but you still haven't said what you think the President meant by those statements.
What did he mean when he said, "If I'd known Jeff was going to recuse, I would have chosen someone else."
You don't need a Q decoder ring to figure it out. Or do you?
That's it. It's all a part of The Plan, right?
You are not an honest debator. You throw in straw man arguments about “Q”, and “The Plan”, which have nothing to do with me.
And you can’t even concede that Trump often uses misdirection in his public statements.
I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.
I think most people watching this exchange would judge you to be the dishonest debater here.
This began when you implied that President Trump employed guile or misdirection in his many negative statements about Jeff Sessions over the last two years.
I wholeheartedly disagreed with that characterization, and replied that Trump does not lie when making public statements, nor does he employ weasel words and semantic tricks to say one thing, while meaning another.
Our relative positions in this debate have been:
Me: Trump meant exactly what he said about Sessions.
You: Trump did not mean exactly what he said about Sessions.
I have staked out a position that is absolute, and requires no further explanation. In fact, no further explanation on my part is even possible. The President said it, and I take him at his word.
You, on the other hand, have staked out a position for which further explanation can easily be provided. You believe the President meant something other than what he said.
I have asked you repeatedly to tell me what you think he meant, but you've continuously evaded and sidestepped that question. In exasperation, I finally resorted to humor, because you refuse to answer me.
I don't think you see that the ball is in your court.
Again -- if the President didn't mean what he said about Sessions, what did he mean?
“..I finally resorted to humor...”
I apologize - I really didn’t realize you were joking.
I’ll try to answer your question:
When Trump made various comments saying he was dissapointed in Jeff Sessions as AG, I’m not disputing the meaning. Everyone knows what it means to be disappointed. My point is more regarding WHY he made the comments - what he was trying to accomplish. The idea that there’s often a strategic reason behind what he chooses to say vs. just expressing his feelings.
I thought it was a little odd for example that he would go for so long being disappointed in Sessions and do nothing about it. I was aware of the theory that the Senate would block him if he tried to replace Sessions - but as I said in my first post, I found that unconvincing - so I was looking for other explanations.
One explanation I considered was that from the beginning Trump has been reluctant to end the Mueller investigation, because he wanted to show the people he was transparent and that he had nothing to hide, and didn’t want to fuel criticisms that he was obstructing. Similarly, he was reluctant all along to aggressively pursue SpyGate prosecutions because it might be seen as political retribution and create martyrs. It does seem like Trump himself (not just Sessions) has declined to take aggressive action toward either issue.
Meanwhile, many of his most vocal supporters were really expecting Trump administration to lock people up and put auick end to Mueller’s investigation. There was bitter disappointment from his base about the lack of real swamp draining this - but then something happened - nobody blamed Trump for it - they just blamed Sessions.
I think when that happened, Trump had a choice - whether to try to explain to his base why he was reluctant to aggressively prosecute top Democrats from the Obama administration, and why he was reluctant to fire Mueller - or whether to just let people think he really wanted to be tough, but Sessions’ recusal was preventing him.
I think he chose the path of least resistance and let people think what they want to think.
As I said in my original post, I find this to be a bit disappointing because it means Trump used Sessions as a pawn, but I realize that in war, generals do sometimes have to sacrifice somebody. It’s the same in politics and in business.
Look, I don’t expect you to agree with my view of things - I know you don’t - but this is exactly what I laid out in my original post - I wasn’t refusing to answer you - this is the same answer as my original post.
It doesn’t mean I think Trump is a liar or of low character - and I wish you would respect that. It just means I think Trump may have strategic reasons for the things he says and does that are more complex than face value.
Somehow the conversation went off the rails when you insisted I was calling Trump a liar - l’m not.
I hope you understand my interpretation of events a little better, even if you don’t agree.
Have a nice day.
As I said in my original post, I find this to be a bit disappointing because it means Trump used Sessions as a pawn, but I realize that in war, generals do sometimes have to sacrifice somebody. It’s the same in politics and in business.
Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for fleshing out your complete thoughts about the Trump/Sessions relationship.
There's merit to your analysis, but I believe there's nothing more to these historical events than what we've witnessed.
To me, the proof in the pudding, is the timing of Sessions' ouster. The President chose to jettison Sessions only when it became clear that the Senate was much improved in his favor. He could have done it sooner, but the Dems would have demogogued the issue to death, which would have fired up the Democrat base to bring even greater numbers to the midterms.
It was a strategic delay, for the express purpose of protecting (and even increasing) the Republicans' hold on that body, and for mitigating their predicted losses in the House.
And help, it did. Witness the Dems now blowing their tops over Trump's appointment of Whittaker as AG. They're mortified because there's now an AG in place who isn't artificially constrained by a self imposed castration of his legal authority to investigate their criminal perfidy in the 2016 election.
Aside from that, here's my broader take on this episode.
Trump arrived in Washington with very few allies within the government. Although he was now the duly elected president of the United States, with all the power that office commands, he could only exercise what political power be really possessed - which wasn't much. He was forced to accept what allies he really had, while slowly cultivating new ones. That has taken time, and he is still working on it.
This is literal palace intrigue. He's been forced to go slowly or stay his hand in many things, where he would naturally have moved much faster.
In my view, this is the primary reason Jeff Sessions' ouster has been so long in coming.
“He’s been forced to go slowly or stay his hand in many things, where he would naturally have moved much faster.”
So, my “pet peeve” is the assumption that Jeff Sessions is the reason Hillary Clinton is not locked up. Or the reason there is still a Mueller investigation. Or maybe even the reason that Barack Obama himself is not locked up, since after all, he was behind it all.
I think blaming all this on Sessions has been a way of avoiding the more difficult question of whether Trump himself may have wished to avoid that bloodbath.
Let’s call a truce, and just say that over the next year, we will see what happens.
Do you think the new AG, or the acting AG, will do all the things that Jeff Sessions failed to do? I don’t.
I think the next AG will be a disappointment, just as Sessions was. Then we will realize that it’s Trump, not Sessions, that dragged his feet.
I think Trump is right to avoid the bloodbath.
How 'bout we keep this within the bounds of reality, eh?
Few would think that even the most aggressive AG could possibly have nabbed the most luminous stars in the globalist criminal cabal by this point in Trump's first term, but I think most would agree that Sessions could have bagged such lower hanging fruit as Strzock, Page, et al, by now.
And yes, as AG, he could have long ago called for Mueller to wrap up his probe and deliver his results. He could have provided strict guidelines and objectives for that investigation, and kept it from spiralling out of control, the way it has. The mission creep of that foray is unconscionable.
But Jeff couldn't do a damn thing to stop it because he'd tied his own hands. Let's not mention the fact that he could have rescinded his recusal at any time, so that he could do the job that desperately needed doing. Or, he could have resigned so that a better man could.
Because of his neutered positioning, he ensured that no harm would come to the criminal conspirators responsible for the most heinous crime in US history. That's not just a failure of good judgement and character, it's complicity to obstruct justice.
This is why the President has publicly castigated Sessions month after month after month. It's why ninety percent of Freepers condemn him, and it's why he's finally been booted from office.
I think blaming all this on Sessions has been a way of avoiding the more difficult question of whether Trump himself may have wished to avoid that bloodbath.
If Trump was reluctant to go after the coup plotters in the deep state, they wouldn't be trying to take him out as fiercely as they are. They know that Jeff Sessions was all that was standing in the way of real investigations that would expose their crimes. Now that he's out, they're going to Defcon One, because Whittaker's on the job, and he's already signalled that he will come for them.
We’ll never know what would have happened if Trump had tried to appoint a more aggressive AG.
Such a move could have prevented a Mueller type witch hunt, and resulted in some low level SpyGate indictments, but it’s also possible that it could have backfired, angering the impeach Trump “resistance” and triggering a far worse witch hunt, independent of the DOJ.
Another thing to consider is the way Trump is regarded by the general public - the innocent victim of a groundless political witch hunt. which he has willingly submitted to, out of a desire to be transparent.
Would Trump enjoy that level of good will if he had appointed an aggressive attack dog AG, or would he be cast as a Nixon like authoritarian, defensive, hunkered down in the Oval Office with his enemies list, a ‘weaponized’ DOJ and FBI, and presumed guilty of massive Watergate type coverups?
I wish people would acknowledge that Trump has survived this witch hunt completely unscathed, and it’s Mueller who has a bad public image - Trump is sitting pretty - things could have been far, far worse!
I submit that it’s been Trump’s instinct all along to submit to the witch hunt, knowing they have nothing on him, just stand there and not hit back, instruct his DOJ to not intervene on his behalf, occaisionally protest via Twitter how unfair it all is, and thereby gain the public’s trust and sympathy.
I followed Q for awhile, it was like a good book, but more like a soap opera. However, he made a few mistakes and then offered an easy fix for it quickly. It was entertaining to read his thoughts and direction of thinking. I tried not to get my hopes up because if it panned out, great, if not i knew I would be disappointed. I grew weary of following after a month or do but it was interesting to follow. Met a lot of good people while doing so.
Except for the part about instructing his DOJ to stand down, the above is an accurate representation of what we've witnessed from the President over the last two years.
I don't believe for a second that Trump planned it this way, or that he stayed the hand of anyone in the DOJ.
No, his AG chose to neutralize himself right out of the gate. He then turned over the Russia! hot potato to his deputy, who was already in cahoots with the coup plotters. He then appointed fellow traveler Mueller to mount the witch hunt, that continues to this moment.
If anything, Trump has done his best to make lemonade out of those bitter lemons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.