There is a longish piece in the New Yorker discussing the Donald's problems and where they might lead, including quite possibly an early termination of his presidency. Some of the speculation is silly, including the idea that Congress might declare him mentally unfit under the 25th amendment.
But a lot of this is serious. Trump has deliberately chosen to walk into a legal minefield with his decision not to put his vast business empire into a blind trust. The number of lawsuits are already piling up and it is only a matter of time before he is compelled to answer questions under oath. For a man of his temperament and history of playing fast and loose with facts, that could be a moment of extreme peril.
His campaign is under investigation for potential collusion with a hostile foreign power. His former, and very short lived National Security Advisor could be facing a criminal indictment. And he has already stated he is prepared to give testimony if granted immunity. It seems unlikely that Flynn has any dirt on the president. If he did I suspect the FBI would have already given him immunity. But he could inflict incalculable damage on an administration that is already in disarray.
Whatever his support among a core group of people, his overall
popularity is hovering around 40% and it's unlikely that he has anything
even close to that degree of committed support in either house of
Congress. That level of public support, or rather hostility, can be politically crippling.
Anyways, while it is far from perfect, the article is a good read and does demonstrate that Donald Trump is facing challenges that put him in an historical class of one.
An 11th Century Challenge to Papal Supremacy
5 hours ago
3 comments:
The article is a typical hatchet piece from the media establishment.
A hit piece from a hostile press? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't make a lot of what the author is saying inaccurate. Trump has some very serious problems, mostly of his own making.
I do not think it surprising that there should be such a hostile press toward our current president. It is a commonplace that the lot of them supported his failed opponent. Less well known, but still capable of being found out, was that between his opponent's tenure as Secretary of State (when she sold her influence to foreign governments for millions of dollars), and afterwards (when she gained millions more by large donations by major corporations), she funneled those millions to pay and otherwise to influence the media and its members to do her will.
Now that she has lost, she still has a cadre of paid toadies with a byline who can continue to speak badly of the president.
For my part, I would like to see a genuine journalist look through the various Wikileaks revelations as regards influence of the media, or perhaps the list of Journolist e-mail members, and compare them with the messages which they have to offer against the current president.
I fear, however, that that would not serve the current agenda of the six or so corporations which run 90 percent of the current U.S. media and entertainment industries.
Post a Comment