Please excuse me while I have a mini-rant.
Occasionally mainstream and social media commentators settle on a theory that projects their own reasoning onto Trump and his supporters. For example, at one time, the going theory was that Lindsay Graham was kissing Trump’s ring because Trump was blackmailing him. It was common for people to ask, “What does Trump have on him?”
At the time, I insisted he was not being blackmailed: Lindsay Graham was kissing Trump’s ring because Trump is a reactionary and Graham is a reactionary, and Graham likes what Trump stands for.
People argued: “But remember how Lindsay Graham was initially opposed to Trump, then he went golfing with Trump and changed his mind?” What could have caused him to change his mind, people wondered, other than blackmail?
The whole blackmail theory gave Graham too much credit. People assumed that without the blackmail Graham would have done the right thing and denounced Trump. The blackmail theorists were projecting their own values onto Lindsay Graham.
What happened was simpler: Initially, Lindsay Graham thought Trump would lose. As Graham famously said in 2016:
He didn’t think the country would elect an avowed white supremacist. The Republicans were accustomed to using dog whistles and Trump was coming right out with racist remarks. When Trump persuaded Graham that he could win, Graham fell in line. Once Trump assumed office, Graham became a devoted follower because that’s what people with authoritarian personalities do. They worship their leaders.
The latest theory is that the goal of Trump’s shenanigans with these criminal probes is to delay. To take a few recent examples, a well-known ethics lawyer who I highly respect, said, “Trump has had remarkable success with delay and evasion tactics.” Another of my faves, a legal commentator, said, “Judges can see through Trump’s delay game.”
Here is the Oxford Dictionary‘s definition of delay:
To make something late or slow. The train was delayed. To postpone or defer.
Here is the definition of obstruction:
A block; to be in the way or get in the way of, to prevent or hinder.
The goal of delay is to postpone the train. The goal of obstruction is to derail the train. I maintain that Trump is not trying to delay. He is trying to derail.
Example: Trump’s Special Master lawsuit
Had he succeeded, the government would have had to return the documents to Trump and would not have been able to charge him with a crime.
He lost. Within a few weeks, court allowed the DOJ to continue its investigation into the classified documents, and within two months, the appellate court bounced the entire case out of court.
- The chorus on social media: “His delay tactic worked! He managed a delay!”
My theory: He thought he would win. He thought he had the right to take and keep the documents, and that the government had no authority to seize the documents or prosecute him for taking them. He thought he could torpedo the entire investigation.
- Me: “His attempt to obstruct the investigation failed.”
But Teri! Why does it matter whether we say ‘delay’ or ‘obstruct’?
Accuracy and precision with language matter. Using the wrong word conveys the wrong ideas. If you think Trump’s object is to delay, he “wins” every time he files a court document. If he’s trying to derail things, he keeps losing. There is a big difference between winning and losing.
Before law school, I taught college English. One day I was teaching a basic English class at the University of California, Davis. A student raised her hand and asked, “But why does it matter which word we use?”
I threw a nutty. (The students were always amused when I threw nutties.) Me: “Wars have been fought over which word was used! The course of history can be changed depending on which word is used!” I went on like that. You get the idea.
Mark Twain said that the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. In this case, it is the difference between labeling Trump a loser or admiring his winning abilities.
Example: Trump’s claims Attorney-Client Privilege
This week Donald Trump received a bit of a shock. He said this:
Evidently nobody ever told Trump about the crime-fraud exception. Now he knows. Here is what happened this week:
- DOJ prosecutors subpoenaed Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Jennifer Little, to testify in the stolen documents case.
- Trump claimed attorney-client privilege to prevent them from testifying. Evidently, he thought this would work.
- The prosecution presented evidence that Trump lied to his lawyers about the documents, which is hugely important and helps clinch the case that Trump deliberately stole the documents.
- We also learned that there is documentary evidence that Trump lied to his lawyers.
- Trump did not want this evidence to fall into the hands of prosecutors.
- A federal judge found that Trump’s communication with his attorneys was part of an on-going crime, therefore the crime-fraud exception applies, therefore, Trump cannot claim attorney-client privilege–and therefore, the prosecution can get the testimony and documentary evidence.
- Trump appealed on Wednesday.
- The court set an expedited schedule: By midnight on Wednesday, Trump had to file a document with the court listing which documents were at issue. By 6 am the government had to file their response.
- On Thursday afternoon, the appellate court ruled against Trump. The appellate court ordered the lawyers to testify and turn over the documentary evidence.
- On Friday, Corcoran testified before the grand jury.
Chorus: Trump managed to get a delay. The delay was short because courts are getting tired of Trump’s delay games.
Me: Trump lost his bid to prevent his lawyers from testifying and turning over documents. The turnaround was fast because the courts are getting tired of his attempts to obstruct and derail these proceedings.
Trump lost with his executive privilege claims
We also found out that Trump tried to prevent Mark Meadows and others from testifying in the probe into the January 6 attack by claiming executive privilege. He lost that one as well.
This week there were also court proceedings about whether Pence would have to testify. We don’t have an answer about Pence, but given Trump’s track record, we can expect Trump to lose on that one, too.
Pence and Meadows are key witnesses to Trump’s attempt to incite an insurrection. Trump is trying to keep them from testifying.
Trump Tries to Derail the Prosecution in Georgia
On Tuesday, Trump filed a motion in Fulton County demanding that the grand jury report not be made public (as the law allows) and that prosecutor Fani Willis be recused.
Without going into the problems with his motion, the reason to file it now (when it is clearly premature and I don’t see how he’d even have standing) is to prevent the public from finding out what is in the report and to get rid of the prosecutor before she can file charges.
Trump Sent Costello as a Witness in the Manhattan Grand Jury
Last week, Trump was offered an opportunity to speak to the Manhattan grand jury. (This means that the grand jury is wrapping up its case and getting ready to decide whether to bring charges.)
Trump declined to appear. Instead, he sent one of his lawyers, Robert Costello, as a witness. It was clear from both Trump and Costello’s statements that Trump believed that the Manhattan case against him was based on Michael Cohen’s word. Trump and Costello evidently believed Costello’s testimony would undermine Cohen’s testimony and thus derail an indictment.
Cohen was asked to stand by as a possible rebuttal witness. The prosecution decided not to call Cohen, which leads to the obvious conclusion that Costello’s testimony was not as compelling as he believed it was, and that he did not manage to derail the investigation.
Notice: This week, Trump tried to derail all four investigations:
- The DOJ stolen documents case (by keeping Corcoran and Little from testifying and turning over documents),
- the DOJ January 6 investigation (by keeping Meadows and Pence from testifying)
- The Georgia investigation (by demanding that Fani Willis recuse herself)
- The Manhattan investigation (by sending in Costello)
He’s like the boy with his fingers in the dike trying to plug up four leaks.
How did Trump respond when he failed to derail these investigations? By calling for violence. This headline is from The Washington Post:
Trump repeatedly evokes threat of violence over a potential indictment
On his Truth Social account, Trump made racist slurs against Bragg and encouraged his supporters to attack Bragg.
Bragg responded with an internal memo stating that his office will not be intimidated.
Trump then increased the fervor of his calls for violence, including showing himself holding a baseball bat not far from Bragg’s head. Bragg indeed received a death threat and an unidentified white substance.
For reasons that I will leave to the psychologists, Trump apparently thinks that he can strong-arm his way out of trouble. He seems to believe if he incites violence, one of two things will happen: he will emerge the victor or the country will be destroyed.
Evidently he thinks either of those options is better than facing indictment.
As the week went on, Trump’s calls to violence increased in fervor. On Friday, Trump warned of potential “death and destruction” if he is indicted.
He held a rally on Saturday in Waco, Texas, a place that obviously “carries great symbolic value to anti-government extremists and conspiracists.” During his rally, he said, “Either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state.”
These are not the words of someone who wants to delay the filing of an indictment or delay his trial. These are the words of someone who would rather destroy the country than see an indictment brought against him. These are the words of someone looking to the most extreme elements of his base to come to his aid.
Will they come to his aid? While incapacitation as a theory of criminal punishment works only temporarily–prison sentences are limited and inmates often grow more hardened–as timing has it, the most dangerous militia leaders who might have answered Trump’s call are currently on trial or in jail for the role they played in the insurrection.
People who assume that Trump is trying to delay instead of destroy are giving Trump way too much credit. “Well, if I were Trump, I would just try to delay things so that my trial landed after I was the Republican nominee,” they think, and project their normalcy onto Trump. That might be how a normal person thinks—but a normal person does not threaten a prosecutor with violence.
Trump is not talking like someone who visualizes himself sitting quietly at the defendant’s table in a criminal courtroom at any time in the future. He’s talking like someone who imagines the courthouse burning down.
Some reporting suggested that Trump relishes the chance to do a perp walk.
I call malarky. If Trump is cool with being indicted, why is he doing everything he can to derail the indictments?
Strongmen don’t like to lose. They like to flex their muscles and show that they are strong. Trump is fighting because that’s what wanna-be dictators do. When they act tough, their supporters cheer.
Trump wants his supporters to cheer. It’s really that simple. Trump wants to be labeled a winner and everyone who characterizes his constant losses in court as victories is helping him.
Someone on Mastodon asked me this:
But surely he benefits from these delays, right?
Wrong! When he delays civil proceedings he may have to pay less money. Also, it’s always better to pay later than now. But criminal matters are different. Threatening prosecutors with violence makes things worse. Antagonizing prosecutors makes things worse.
He’s accustomed to civil cases, where long delays are possible and he’s (theoretically) on equal footing with his opponents because civil cases are citizen v. citizen.
Criminal cases are the government against the individual. The government has the power. Individuals have constitutional protections because the government has the power.
Trump doesn’t see or accept the inherent power imbalance right now. Antagonizing prosecutors when you are under investigation is stupid. 🎶 It’s like spitting into the wind, or pulling the mask off the old lone ranger🎶
Had Trump cooperated in the documents case, he probably wouldn’t be facing indictment. But he didn’t cooperate because he can’t cooperate (again, I will leave the reasons to the psychologists).
One person on Mastodon told me this:
- The prosecutors are so terrified of screwing up the cases they are bringing the delays themselves.
I was sort of flummoxed by that comment. The idea seems to be “if an indictment hasn’t happened yet, it must be because someone is creating delays.”
All of the “delay” comments appear to be motivated by frustration that there are still no indictments. I might feel frustrated at 5:00 am that the sun hasn’t yet risen, but that doesn’t mean the sunrise has been delayed.
In an instant gratification world, people seem to think that anything that takes time must be flawed.
Enough talk about Strong Men. Here is what a Strong Dog looks like
Image #1: JJ making sure no ground animals entered our backyard. He stepped in front of the light.
Image #2: JJ’s shadow on the garage, capturing how he sees himself (and probably, how the ground animals see him.)
“You don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t blow into the wind”.
Thanks for the continuing education. Learning how to than what to expand horizons. Delay vs obstruction, well done.
Teri, I have learned so much and often been calmed by your analysis and commentary. Thank you so much. It would take too long to enumerate a bunch of examples, so I’ll fast forward to what I’m either disagreeing with or having a hard time grasping on this one…
I understand the important distinction you make between delay and obstruction. In every case or example I can think of besides Trump’s pending indictments, all the points that flow from that distinction ring true. But not for Trump. For most defendants, delay only delays the inevitable, without avoiding it. For Trump, delay *is* obstruction, if he can win or re-take the Presidency. It seems delusional to think he might, or that he could go that unchecked, but it’s a delusion that came true before, so no matter how odious I find it to admit, it’s understandable that he could think it could work again.
He appears to believe that if he can just delay everything long enough, he can once again ascend to the office where he has unchecked power to make any investigations, charges, or convictions go away. *I* don’t think he has that power, but he thinks he does. He has asserted that Article II gives him power to do whatever he wants. The check built in to Article I failed to impeach him twice and the Dems don’t look poised to win enough seats to fare any better if they try again. He believes, not entirely without reason, that the Supreme Court is beholden to him, so there goes the check in Article III. I can’t tell if he literally believes he is a Divine Right ruler, but he definitely appears to think himself infallible.
SCOTUS hasn’t been as loyal to him as he wants or thinks he’s entitled to, but a good reason to appeal every loss is not for delay per se, but because if he can force a question to be decided by the court he “made”, he’s more likely to win than if some Obama appointee ruled against him. A win there is effectively obstruction, but delay is a means to get there, not the end. If he can ever get SCOTUS to decide a contested election (even if he’s the only one contesting it), recent history (Bush v Gore) and the composition of the current Court lean in his favor, Constitution be damned. I really hope he’s wrong, but this Court is too partisan (in his direction) for me to consider them a reliable check on his power if the alternative is seating a Dem.
If I had to pick what I think his ultimate goal is, delay or obstruction, I would say obstruction. I think in Trump’s case, though, it’s a distinction without a difference.
You are projecting your logic onto Trump. You think that if he delays long enough he can avoid, but that would only be if he dies first. He’s not going to win the presidency and I can’t think of any Republican who might win and pardon him.
He has never before been the subject of criminal investigations, so there is no comparing to the past. one point I’ve been making is that criminal proceedings are different from congressional proceedings and different from civil proceedings.
If these prosecutors have the evidence and want to go after him, any “delay tactics” will make things worse for him. I guarantee it. They already have. He would not be facing indictment in the stolen documents case if he had cooperated.
In 2016, I was convinced he couldn’t win the presidency until he did. I desperately hope you are right this time. Everything you’re saying, I want to be true. I just have to see it happen to be convinced, because so much else that I was counting on has failed to stop him *so far*. As it is, even if he gets imprisoned and barred from office, I feel like he has so corrupted his party and mainstreamed white supremacy that stopping Trumpism will be much harder than just stopping Trump. Of course, I want to be wrong about that, too, and holding him accountable for his crimes would be a good start.
Thank you for your straightforward, factual responses to these ongoing fears. You might find this tweet of interest https://twitter.com/JamesFLoveIV/status/1639883882056019969?t=xSR5mrw4im2Dg6yrHIVZRQ&s=19
Several people have shown it to me. I skimmed it. It’s what several people, myself included, have been saying since 2021, right? (The author by the way follows me on Twitter)
I, too, saw this tweet, and replied to it or another tweet in the thread — that I mute folks I know if I don’t want to be bothered by/with their comments rather than blocking them. I want to preserve relationships with folks I know and keep the door open for future conversations when I’m ready.
Teri. I will offer an unqualified opinion; he’s a psychopath. He checks all the boxes.
Thanks for the clarification on delay vs derail. Excellent.
R
however, let’s not forget the time the Russian embassy tweeted out a photo of what might have been Lindsey Graham swimming naked in a pool… It seemed like it was a timely message.
Great Post. TY
Love the pictures of JJ this week, especially the SHADOW. LOL
I often recommend yours as a voice of reason to people.
After reading this post I felt like a Rubik’s Cube with all my colors clicked back together. All the various threads and subjects are now perfectly clear and make sense in a way that I *knew* in my gut but couldn’t explain. Delay v obstruction. Win v losing. Thank you.
There is a process, Perry. You know this. Nobody but trump and trumpheads like that it slows everything down, but the slowness of our process ensures that prosecutor’s cases are airtight, through working every angle before the cases are aired out in our courtrooms and then possibly thrown out because of some little glitch, some little unforseen problem that might cause the case to be tossed out, due to unfairness to the defendant. Our prosecutors need to take great care with every new complaint from criminals like tfg, one at a time, and as they come long.
And no, our system of justice is not perfect. Far from it, but its the system of justice that we have, and it is constantly, though slowly, being improved. It is also the best on the planet. Our Founders had a lot on their plate, and they knew it when it came time to create this country out of whole cloth, and as quickly as possible. I tend to think that they were fairly terrified that they might muck it up, so I believe that they singled out the biggest posible problems first, and then, knowing that they wouldn’t be able to make everything some version of perfect right away, they just did the best they could. Their biggest fear I think, was the need to somehow protect our new Democracy from the very real possibility of becoming another Monarcy, (Many Americans still loved the King and were open to that idea), like the one from which we had just escaped, or the Autocracy tfg is now trying to create, so our election system was born, and concerns over the tremendous danger of foreign nations, possibly enemies, interfereing in our elections in order to gain something from us were addressed.
(As an example as to why you are right to worry about our system being far from perfect, think of trump trying to bribe Zelinski, with OUR TAX DOLLARS, in order to damage his political rival! In that case, we had a US President deliberately TRYing to get a foreign nation to interfere with our election! The Founders must have rolled over. Funnily, he was tried and convicted for that, and yet due to great flaws in our system of Justice and government, he walked. So I do agree, our system is terribly flawed, and we must, fix it.)
My point is that we need to deal within the system we have, in order to fix it. It’s the only tool we have to use, in order to do so, and I think that the Founders were brilliant, in their efforts to create the best Democracy in history. How could they have possibly immagined, a diabolical criminal like Donald Trump, in order to protect our then infant country, from him? I think they did pretty great.
Seperation of church and state was addressed by our Founders so that our government, unlike the King, would not be able to tell us who or how to worship, nor could we tell each other who or how to worship either, because of some government issued law. No such law existed, and thankfully, it still doesn’t. We remain “free from and free of, religeon”, according to our government. The list went on as such, each issue being decided as best as possible, and one issue at a time.
When it came to our justice system, the Founders very much wanted Americans to have truly equal justice under the law. Here, unlike in Merry old England, and thanks to the Founders great care, the government was not ever in this country, able to just pick people up off of the streets, try them in a ten minute trial, and then have them taken out back and summarily hung without a second thought. (There were of course horrible exceptions; the stupid racist Southern laws that lead to lynchings, widely, in the first half of the 20th century were of course, a travesty and flew in the face of our Constitution, due to astounding ignorance) but our Constitution was written to protect us, even as criminals, from that, because we might NOT, be criminals. We gained the right to council, to appeal, and so on, in order to keep criminal matters fair to both sides of an issue. There was in fact NO justice system in England that protected the people from the hate and brutality of Lords and others with enough power to have you hung. They could just hang you themselves. It was dispicable, and our Founders knew that well. And so they went out of their way to draw up our Constitution with protections for us, scores of them, in order to keep we the people safe from our government’s wrath if we happened to be suspected of a crime. Its quite difficult to put people in jail in this country, because our system is designed to keep us safe from our own government’s potential over reach, and people in government who may be corrupt. Only the facts and the law, matter, here. Americans in fact are safer from our own government here than any other place else in the world, and in history, thanks to our Founders, who had the idea that it was better to have a few escape justice, than to have one man in prison unjustly.
Because of all of that, yes, criminals walk in this country. Our trumps are able to delay and obstruct, because our system isn’t perfect. Even they, are given every opportunity in the world to defend themselves. Does it suck? When it comes to trump, oh HELL yea! It does indeed, until we ourselves need to face a judge, at which point we may see it all as being pretty durn cool, I do, that a deranged prosecutor can’t just ramrod us into jail, just because they think we might be a freagin’ LIIIBeral, while they see their Republicanism as their religeon. So this is our system, our gift from our Founders written with our best and most fair ourcomes in mind, if and when we face the law.
The good news is that we are only 230 years old as a nation, a Democracy, just a pup as these things go, and so we have a lot of growing and improving to do, and centuries to do so, which means that we the citizens have to figure out how to cope with what we’ve got, right now, how to not let it drive us crazy, how to voice our opinions to our reps in Congress via email and telephone, to VOTE, and to interact with our fellow citizens in order to advise the ignorant, to gently, politely, swing them into the light, because screaming doesn’t work. Trust me. lol. I’ve tried it. WAPO has it right. “Democracy Dies In Darkness.” , and we should trust that we’ll get a lot closer to perfect, through the passage of time. Even if we don’t see it in our lifetimes. Its the idea, of our Founder’s America that is worth fighting for.
In any case, I think that we can trust that trump is going down, and thanks to our system, he’ll probably go down for the rest of his life, without any valid complaints from his lawyers.
Sorry Perry, but this is just as good as it gets. For now. Be grateful we’re not in Russia! And please do what you can to help.
Norman, I didn’t intend to put Perry’s comment through. I’m sorry because it forced you to spend a long time responding to nonsense. I approve of most comments, but there really was no point in putting his through. It was my mistake. He was clearly missing the entire point of the blog post.
Good analysis, but major props for the Jim Croce reference.
Yes!
I sometimes find myself thinking ‘I need Teri Kanefield to write about this so I can calm down’.
I do wish there was a psychologist or psychiatrist with expertise in narcissistic rage to help us prepare for what is happening now, and will only get worse as the walls close in on him, literally and figuratively.
A collaboration between you and such a person would be so helpful.
And I love JJ. He’s the best boy.
Hi Vickie,
Do you know of the Twitter account ‘Shallow State?’ It is run by a trained psychologist who often tweets about Trump’s malignant narcissist pathology. The account used to be ‘Duty to Warn.’
Another good psychologist on Twitter is ‘Michigan Man.’ I recommend both.
Thanks for this. I was a follower for Duty2Warn and had not realized he “retired”. I am now following OurShallowState.
My brain is failing me this morning, hopefully you’ll be able to figure out what the HECK I’m talking about.
Somewhere in my past reading of Trumps mess I saw something that piqued my interest: The Presidential Records Act has been approved and signed but it’s never been tested in the courts. There’s a term for that and I can’t remember it now. BUT I wonder if this is a get out of jail card if Trump challenges the whole concept of the PRA and eventually SCOTUS says: BINGO, the PRA is Unconstitutional.
Have I gone completely off the rails with this concept?
Thanks for all the hard work you put in educating we poor souls who just want to see the Orange Beast in jail! 🙂
The presidential records act doesn’t enter into the equation here. I believe you’re thinking of Trump’s defense that because the presidential records act doesn’t contain a criminal provision, he can’t be prosecuted for violating it. He is not being investigated for violating the PRA.
Great post! Since I follow on Mastadon, I’d been expecting something like this soon. BTW I get gigglely when you send a commenter to the FAQ’s. And I love when once in a while 1 comes back w an enlightened attitude. Thanks
HAHA. I try to hold on to my patience. I came close to dedicating this blog post to the people who totally annoyed me this week on social media 🙂
Several tooters on my thread seem to display their cynicism as a badge of honor, or as a mechanism against being hurt or disappointed when everything they want to transpire didn’t happen yesterday. I had someone say to me today, when I praised the courts for turning away the flurry of lawsuits from trump this week, “I’m waiting to see something stick.”
I’m proud to live in a country that follows the rule of law, imperfect as it is.
When someone says something like “I’m waiting to see something stick,” they have no idea what they are talking about. If you press for specifics, you’ll get nonsense. What does it mean for something to “stick.”
Many of the “Indictments now!” people have no idea how unsettling things will become after there are indictments.
Thank you so much Teri. I agree. I have long thought that he acts more like someone trying to burn everything down rather than a simple delay.
A righteous rant, thanks. I agree, but…
Most American’s ideas of our criminal justice system are based on movies and TV shows. The intro to any Law & Order episode is about the whole of their understanding, and that plus the enraged opposition to Trump (his smug personality as much as his goals) creates an odd mix of anger and despair. “It’s all so obvious! The feckless coward Merrick Garland should have thrown him in prison for treason, fraud, and lying years ago! He’s getting away with it! Nothing can stop him! We’re DOOMED!!!!”
I greatly value your explanations of why the process is slow and why that matters so much. As others have said, derailment is the goal, and delay is a consolation prize, and Trump will take either one. It’s not mentioned often enough that Trump is a follower of Norman Vincent Peale and his Power of Positive Thinking. He believes you are defeated only when you accept and embrace defeat. This plus his sociopathic level of self-regard means that inciting a riot or civil war is perfectly acceptable if it means he remains a winner. He’ll take the win by any means necessary. As a wealthy white American man and global celebrity, and former President, he has access to levers, options, and deference that only a handful of people in this world can touch, and none of the governors: he owes nothing to a political party or board of directors, and he’s the literal embodiment of the old joke “if you owe the bank $100 million, the bank has a problem”.
Trump is the loosest of cannons and the livest of wires. He can incite a riot whenever he wants. He’s already done that! But proving that in a court of law against a man with all that power and all those options is not the Perry Mason slam dunk people wish it was, and far too many people refuse to believe or accept it. I think that’s because they want somebody else to fix their problem, and their problem is far bigger than Trump. The only difference of opinion between Trump and the Republican Party establishment is Trump’s rejection of objective reality in the name of The Power Of Positive Thinking. There will be more Trumps, but lacking his rejection of objective reality they will be far more dangerous and harder to stop. Each of us are going to have to stand up against friends, family, and some angry armed mobs at some point if we want to keep a republic.
The prosecutors are moving at light speed for such complex cases. Yes they have to get this right, but that’s a long way from delaying anything.
The truly frustrating thing is that most of this could have been avoided had the Senate voted to convict and remove Trump from office in the first impeachment when even his supporters agreed that he had committed the offenses charged. Trump is one of the biggest threats to our national security out there. It’s dumbfounding that anybody still supports him. Certainly nobody in touch with reality could.
JJ has a fierce shadow!
Thank you. Excellent post.
Thank you for consistently teaching navies voters, the truth! My Aunt turned me on to your blogs and you, and I am so grateful. Without these weekly blogs, others and I have a hard time knowing what is truly happening as this is truly unbelievable at times.
I get to learn so much and for this I am forever thankful.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1639883882056019969.html
My theory about Lindsey Graham has always been that he’s like a pilot fish. He ‘swims’ with the person he thinks will give him the most advantages. When McCain was alive and well, Graham was right by his side. However, when McCain passed, Graham sought and found another person who could make him feel important and powerful. My question is, even seeking ‘power’ as Graham has, how could he swing from a beloved moderate Republican to the likes of authoritarian Trump? Thoughts?
Sorry to not be Teri Kane (just figuratively) replying.
I love the metaphor you use for Lindsey – the Pilot Fish. It works so well to describe him!
You have the answer to your question right there. I think the answer lies in what, or who in this case, Pilot Fish really are. It’s easy to mistakenly think they are parasites, but here’s a good description from, of course, Wikipedia:
“Pilot fish follow sharks because other animals which might eat them will not come near a shark. In return, sharks do not eat pilot fish because pilot fish eat their parasites”
It’s the perfect analogy! Trump is the shark, Lindsey is the Pilot Fish. Trump keeps Lindsey’s predators away (here’s where I do agree with some of those who think Trump has something on Lindsey. It may be something we already know, e.g., that he’s gay. But his power is entrenched in the South so he’s vulnerable even in this day). And Lindsey helps Trump. After all, he’s a predator himself and has some power.
Anyway, don’t want to take the analogy so far it breaks, but I think the answer to your question lies in the Big Predator/Smaller Predator relationship.
They both have their vulnerabilities. Trump’s malignant narcissism, and Lindsey his sexual orientation situationally centered in his age, his profession, and his geography.
My two cents.