Andrew McCabe’s Comments about Trump More Likely Reference What an Easy Mark Russia Thinks He Is than Any (Unexpected) Thing He Did

Andrew McCabe was on Chris Cuomo’s show last night, talking about Trump’s reported plan to release more sensitive intelligence about the Russian investigation. A number of people have asked me about it, so I thought I’d talk about what he did and did not say. First, my transcription:

Cuomo: … the next leading theory, other than just payback, is he wants a lot of stuff from the Russia investigation declassified because he’s been told by Nunes and others, “the more comes out the more it would look you were framed.” Uh, what’s the risk there, if a lot of stuff comes out? We’ve talked about sources and methods. But let me reverse the question: from your knowledge, is there anything that could come out that people would look at it and say, “Wow, I can’t believe they ever included the President in this analysis. He and his people clearly did nothing.”

McCabe: There is some very, very serious, very specific undeniable intelligence that has NOT come out that, if it were released, would risk compromising our access to that sort of information in the future. I think it would also risk casting the President in a very negative light. So does it — would he have a motivation to release those things? It’s almost incomprehensible to me that he would want that information out. I don’t see how he spins it to his advantage because, quite frankly, I don’t believe it’s flattering.

Cuomo: You think there’s more bad stuff about him that we don’t know?

McCabe: There is always more intelligence — there was a lot more in the intelligence community assessment than what was ever released for public consumption. I mean, the original version of that report was classified at the absolute highest level I have ever seen. You’re talking about Top Secret, Compartmentalized Code Word stuff, and it would be ver–it would be tragic to American intelligence collection for those sources to be put at risk.

First, note that McCabe at first didn’t answer Cuomo’s question, which was basically whether there was anything that would substantiate Trump’s claims to have been framed. Instead, he first says that there’s stuff that if it were released, would have a permanent impact on US intelligence collection. Only after saying that does McCabe say there’s stuff that McCabe doesn’t believe is “flattering” that would “risk casting the President in a very negative light.” Cuomo picks up on that and asks if there’s more bad stuff about Trump that we don’t know (as if CNN has covered even the public stuff that puts Trump in a very bad light, which they have not). McCabe responds by addressing only the Intelligence Community Assessment completed by early January 2017. He then describes the ICA using terms that describe the most sensitive stuff coming from a variety of different collection sources, without specifically saying that this is about Trump, or if it is, whether it involves something that Trump did rather than something that was said about Trump.

Moreover, McCabe is talking about stuff that was available by January 6, 2017, not stuff that became available by May 2019, when Mueller shut down his office. He’s talking about stuff that, because CIA and NSA were key parts of the collection effort, could not be targeted at Trump, but instead would be targeted at Russians.

It’s possible this stuff refers to more compromise by women. After all, the SSCI Report (which benefitted more from CIA and NSA information than it did from FBI information) found more examples — three — than were known about Trump’s possible sexual compromise when in Russia, and the section is preceded by two redacted pages.

It may also include details about Trump’s 2013 trip associated with Miss Universe, which the SSCI Report also provides damning new details about.

Another likely topic pertains to Russia’s profiling of Trump as a potential asset. The SSCI Report leaves his usefulness as a money laundering vehicle almost unmentioned and similarly limits mention of Trump’s ties to the mob (though it does include the latter in several places, such as this discussion of his 2013 trip and this discussion of warnings about the Agalarovs). But if the IC had the kind of collection as sensitive as McCabe says, it likely includes discussions of how easy it would be to stoke Trump’s narcissism to get him to work contrary to America’s interests.

There’s one more thing it likely includes. As I observed when it came out, the Mueller Report does not discuss — at all — Trump’s interactions directly with Putin, not even his meeting at the G20 where they discussed adoptions in advance of Trump crafting a June 9 denial for his failson that focused on adoptions. In my never-ending fascination with what gets classified, the Andrew Weissmann book also makes no mention of that meeting, even though he discusses the adoption cover story at length. If that weren’t really sensitive, he should have been able to argue that the meeting was public, not least given that Trump confessed it himself in an NYT interview. Trump and Putin are not known to have met before he became President. Nevertheless, there must be a corpus of intelligence of “about” collections in which Trump’s cultivation by Putin are discussed.

Still, most of that isn’t about what Trump did — aside the same financial corruption and serial sexual philandering he has done in the US. It’s about what Russia thinks of Trump. Which is consistent with it not being “flattering” rather than being described as “damning.”

McCabe doesn’t talk about the damning information that FBI would have found between the time the ICA came out and the time the investigation into his closest associates ramped up. And that stuff is likely more interesting.

94 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    Well, that is quite a tease from McCabe here. I think Biden’s team needs to look at it thoroughly, expose everything they can (keeping sources and methods out of view) and prosecute. It’s not only DJT that played footsie with the Russians, the entire GOP leadership did which would partially explain why Nunes and Graham had their complete personality changes (aside from being craven). Play it straight all the way, and it might finish the GOP as a party.

    • Robot17 says:

      I’ve always wondered what type of intelligence that couldn’t be exposed was making some of these people run around with their hair on fire. My bet: technical sources, similar to the code breaking efforts during WW2. Human sources aren’t as reliable.

    • subtropolis says:

      If it’s something like a recording of his private conversation with Putin at Helsinki, or evidence garnered by a Kremlin insider, there’s a good chance it won’t see the light of day.

      • Rugger9 says:

        I don’t think that particular conversation will since IIRC our interpreter wasn’t invited and so we’d risk revealing a source inside the Kremlin to get the actual conversation. That is, unless Vlad decides to burn DJT as an asset, but I think that will happen well after Biden is inaugurated because of the use of DJT as a noisy president -in-exile.

      • emptywheel says:

        It *cannot*, which is part of the point of this post. McCabe was talking about a report done by January 2017. Helsinki was July 2017.

    • Timmer says:

      Thank, Rugger! What you described here about “the entire GOP” is what I have been thinking vis a vis MCconnell and Graham.

      • bowtiejack says:

        Of course, these days we’re all OK with gay marriage and whatnot.
        But the Russians are masters of espionage, they play a very long game, and if they have kompromat on Trump, they might also have it on the two long-time (before gay marriage was OK) closet cases who are still in the closet and are the Senate Majority Leader and the Senator from South Carolina. It might explain a lot.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Who says Kremlinology is a lost art or has passed its day? To the contrary, Trump’s regime and personal behavior make it an essential practice. Secretive actors do not lay out their plans or accomplishments on the pavement in block letters.

    But when they are in government, and despite their best efforts, they leave trails. These have to be sniffed out, using an encyclopedic memory, from troves of unrelated information. As in looking for a new isotope or heavenly body, their existence often has to be inferred from their effects on their surroundings. That requires a rapid but careful process of logically eliminating other possibilities.

    Precursors might be Izzy Stone or, in another vein, James Burke (of Connections fame). But today, I don’t think anyone does it better than Marcy Wheeler, much to the chagrin of mainstream journalists and B school quants, who prefer more obvious, kick-the-tires kinds of evidence. Many thanks, Marcy, for helping keep government accountable.

    • Valley girl says:

      Am I going too far in suggesting that Trump is essentially a mobster who has been cultivated as a Russian asset?

      • Valley girl says:

        I didn’t mean to say that that’s how Trump actively sees himself, but rather that he’s an “asset” in a de facto way.

        • John Paul Jones says:

          I think you’re spot on. There was a report, I think included in a CNN bio of Trump, where someone who had known him for a long time talked specifically about how Trump dresses himself and presents himself like a clone of Giotti, the Dapper Don, right down to the choice of overcoat and gloves, and about how that visual presentation fitted so well with his pursuit of casinos, where the mobsters hang out and make their money. Trump is a Made-Guy Wannabe, was this man’s assessment, that is, it’s Trump’s fantasy of who he is, the tough guy, the godfather, the guy who makes offers that can’t be refused, whom others come to for favours, the guy who dispenses justice to his enemies. It’s bullshit, of course, but this is the self-image, or at least, a big part of it.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Agree. The fictional Vito Corleone had a sense of honor and proportion – illustrated in the opening scene with the undertaker – and an ability to triage threats from his opponents. Witness the different treatment he metes out to his wife’s friend’s landlord vs. the first mob boss he killed with the towel-wrapped pistol.

            Donald Trump has no honor, sense of proportion, or ability to judge threats. Each is existential and has to be met with all guns blazing. That’s little man Cohn’s tutelage. Until now, though, it’s served him well.

            • ChesterM says:

              Please don’t cite the mafia for a definition of honor.

              [Please use the same username each time you comment. This is your third user name. /~Rayne]

      • P J Evans says:

        I don’t think so.
        He can’t see that he’s a Russian asset, because he thinks he’s the smartest guy in every room.

        • ducktree says:

          For me, the word “asset” denotes some agency in achieving that status. Example: I strive to be and be seen as an asset to my employer and I think I’m successful at both. That’s a good thing for all parties concerned. . .

          In Trump’s case, he’s nothing more than a tool – he is used by others (in his case, by autocratic national leaders) whenever those others need to sand down some sharp edges in their international transactions. That’s only good for them, not us.

          • rip says:

            Agree. Tool is the operative word.
            And a dumb tool like a stone or a hammer.
            Not the a genius tool or a a stable one.
            So how many people are using this dumb tool to help destroy democracy and the US? All the current (r)epuglicans? The plutocrats/oligarchs of the world (kochs, thiels, mercers, murdochs, etc.)?
            Or is there some other insidious force that causes this dumb tool to flail about causing mayhem? (sex, money, lust, greed, brain farts, etc.)?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        No. But Trump is better at avoiding accountability than he is at being a mobster. He would frame the latter not as mob-like behavior – though he would delight in the analogy – but as being good at bidness, even though he is a manifest failure at it.

        He is marvelous at stiffing banks, partners, and customers, who have reputational and budgetary interests Trump lacks. Otherwise, he gets zilch when he plays with big boys, whom he avoids. His normal targets are the vulnerable – undocumented workers, labor generally, officials without the expertise or budget to fight his persistent bad faith legal claims.

        As for Russia, Trump may not be a knowing asset, but he would be a willing one. A Russian handler is likely to have assessed his personal failings and chosen to tell him nothing, but to pitch everything from the perspective of, “What’s in it for Trump?” What’s in it for Russia and Russian interests, he would never get to.

        • Valley girl says:

          Thanks for your reply. Do you mean “the former” rather than “the latter” in your first paragraph? Makes more sense to me that way.

          Yes, second paragraph, first sentence- that’s what I was getting at with “de facto”, but you said it better.

          Been a while since I’ve read LeCarre, but someone can be an unwitting asset, right? Or is that what asset essentially means?

      • ThomasH says:

        Trump has always reminded me of some of the small time mafioso that habituat(ed) NYC. Specifically he reminds me of the Micheal character in Scorsese’s Mean Streets.

      • Fran of the North says:

        This weekend I had the TV on as background noise and there was a show on Al Capone, and as I listened, I realized how similar Capone and Trump’s approach to everything are. We’re just lucky he doesn’t regularly resort to firearms.

  3. PeterS says:

    Isn’t the most likely explanation for Trump interfering with the intelligence community that, before he leaves office, he wants to find out exactly what the IC knows about him; not that he wants to release the information he finds (though no doubt he would if he could unearth something to spin). Sorry if I’m stating the obvious.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump’s usual response to a threat is intense vindictiveness. He is driven to humiliate and destroy what he can’t have or which assaults his fantasies.

        Finding out what his exposure might be and to get information to defend against it would be rationally important. He was certainly worried about something at the start of his term, with his obsessions about Comey and Flynn. But he has such a weak sense of anything but the immediate present, that I think doing that would be part of a jumble, rather than a primary effort.

        • timbo says:

          Uh, you mean like it being found out that he was working on a real estate/branding deal in Russia after he told everyone he wasn’t?

  4. Nehoa says:

    This post made me think about the larger picture of how Russia now thinks about the U.S. That 72 million people voted this year to re-elect Trump, after all we have learned about him, must offer a treasure trove of insights about how the U.S. can be manipulated and divided.
    I think the more we discuss that aspect of the situation, the more we inoculate ourselves against the manipulation to come. Certainly not with everyone, but with some.

    • Rayne says:

      Works both ways. Whatever worked in 2016 to cause the record 80K undervote in Michigan, ensuring the slim 10K win margin, didn’t work this time in part because of the opposing candidate, and in part because of the pandemic.

      And the pandemic is the same problem Putin faces — the Russian people see that Americans didn’t roll over and let Trump commit mass murder to suppress turnout, or allow Trump’s overt racism go without a response. Now the Russians know where some reasonable limits are to an autocrat’s power.

    • John Paul Jones says:

      I think it’s pretty simple. Trump is against what they’re against, coastal elites, damned superior snooty bureaucrats, pointy-headed teachers, gay people (except family members), non-white people, corrupt politicians. And they don’t care that Trump is obviously corrupt and narcissistic; they solve that with a little sip of what-aboutism to set themselves upright.

      Point is, when many people vote, all too often, they’re not voting for anything, they’re voting against something. Of course, there are a set of True Trump Believers (TTBs) out there who are swallowing the Kool-Aid, but I don’t think they’re the majority of Trump voters. You get to the 70 million by adding always-vote-Republican to enemy-of-my-enemy voters, some evangelicals, and the TTBs together. If you look at the maps of the election, it looks a lot like what some used to dismissively call “fly-over country” is where Trump’s voters live; that, and the unreconstructed South.

    • Mitch Neher says:

      And your comment reminds me that Ivan Pavlov was a Russian.

      Although Ms. Wheeler’s gibes about the frothy right usually trigger thoughts of yummy millet–strike that–the salivation reflex, anyhow.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Appearing before the Federalist Society this week – like Bill Barr a few days before him – Justice Alito chose to rend his ideological garments over the cultural death of his extreme right wing views. Both were attempting to give them new life. But both are losing in what they call the “marketplace” of ideas.

    In his speech, covered by the world press, Alito was also acknowledging his overt, unremitting bias. That is highly improper conduct for a sitting Supreme Court Justice. He should recuse himself from any case dealing with the ideas he addressed there. Better yet, he should retire.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      I’m sure Fox would be happy to have Alito on the payroll as a talking head. Maybe they will make him an offer he can’t refuse and he will see the benefit in a big check and the 4 year target that is the Biden presidency.

      We can only hope.

  6. GKJames says:

    Not “flattering” also could refer to the long-standing suspicion that Trump, in exchange for cash from Moscow, was (is?) keeping tabs on Russians in the U.S, and on oligarchs in particular, some of whom have views not perfectly in sync with the Kremlin’s. Probably not illegal, unlikely to affect Americans, and done solely for money. But hardly a good look for an American president.

    And if Putin’s people aren’t doing so already, they’ll use McCabe’s description of the “absolute highest” classification to start looking for the leak. They’re in no doubt that the story’s about them more than it is about Trump (whom they’ve probably toyed with for decades, ignorant buffoon that he is).

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    A wry observation from Laura Ansley, citing Benjamin Dreyer, who parodies an example from his own book, Dreyer’s English:

    The highlights of his [Trump’s] waning administration include encounters with Rudy Giuliani, a healthcare disaster and a dildo collector.

    The ambiguity created by failing to use the Oxford comma after “disaster,” makes it seem as if Rudy is both a disaster and collector of dildos. Captions for the forthcoming NY’er cartoon invited.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      I saw that Borat video clip. What makes you think that comma that didn’t bark was a grammatical error ?

  8. MattyG says:

    DT is still president – McCabe is being as delicate and diplomatic as he can be I would imagine. “Unflattering” is a term suggestive of a placeholder for criminal activity the department felt it could not charge a sittling president with – garden variety or worse – McCabe leaves that open to speculation. It also reads a bit like a warning… “let sleeping dogs lie” perhaps. We will see.

    But DT appears eager to get certain documents out while he can still pick the ones he feels paint him as a victim of surveillance. To get ahead of a story which after Jan 20 only surrogates will be around to manage the narrative. What would he fear most? Being painted as a easy mark by the Kremlin and duped all the way, a career money launderer for the Russian mob? illicit sexual behavior? partner to a sanctions quid pro? the Moscow tower deal?. Who knows… But he may feel an unjustified confidence that the worst assessments will never be aired publily to protect agency sources and methods, and as his hubris knows no bounds and his Senate snoops and collaborators can hardly know the whole picture, I think he’s in deeper trouble than the State charges if this is more than bluff and bluster.

  9. Ed Walker says:

    If the information would actually behead the Republican party, taking out, say McConnell and some major donors, I might have to think long and hard about the cost-benefit calculation.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Senator Dick Durbin, 76, answers a question about doing away with the filibuster by filibustering, and voicing his commitment to reach around, er, across the aisle to find “compromise” with GOP Senators.

    The senior Senator from Illinois, Durbin just won his fifth term, but he seems never to have met Mitch McConnell. Sigh. Sometimes, it feels like Groundhog Day over and over again.

    Memo to Dick: If the GOP keep control of the Senate, McConnell won’t give a shit how compromising you are. If it doesn’t, you, like Manchin, seem determined to enjoy legislative deadlock, even though the keys to that particular prison lie warm and comfortable in your pocket. Use the pot or get off it, Dick.

      • Quake says:

        One hopes that it’s performative—giving Moscow Mitch and the Rs a fair chance (which he and they will presumably disdain) to obtain a causus belli for going scorched earth. Said hopes 99% plus in vain, alas.

      • ducktree says:

        Oh, his jackassery goes back to the W years. When commenting on the Red Cross report on the conditions and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (iirc), he righteously lambasted the Administration by saying he thought he was reading a report on the conditions at a Soviet era gulag.

        Days later he was crying on the floor of the Senate begging his colleagues’ forgiveness because of conservative Blue Dog backlash. F’ him.

    • Rugger9 says:

      SC will get theirs, karma has a way of righting wrongs. However, I’d ask EW how much longer the Blues in Ann Arbor will tolerate Harbaugh’s performance. They looked really bad today against Wisconsin, especially on the 4th and inches at the goal line in the first half.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Rahm Emanuel is the avatar of the Obama administration’s rejection of a progressive agenda. Joe Biden needs to give him a wide berth. The same with Republican investment banker John Kasich.

    Giving either of them a Cabinet post would be an own goal. Give them a sinecure, if you must, but keep them away from budgets, the public, and public policy. Any prominent role for either would depress enthusiasm and make your goals suspect, now, in 2022, and in 2024.

    • P J Evans says:

      Kasich shouldn’t be given any position that I can think of. We should be able to fill the cabinet with competent Dems, not conservadems.

    • pdaly says:

      I may have missed someone else here posting this news.
      Glad to learn Dawn Johnsen is on the Biden/Harris transition team.

      Hoping she gets better treatment this time than under Obama when he seemed to slow walk her Senate confirmation for the position in the Office of Legal Counsel, and she eventually withdrew her name after her nomination lingered on for two years without any apparent progress towards confirmation.

      • pdaly says:

        I should be more clear. Johnsen will be part of a volunteer committee to help Biden-Harris in the transition. Biden has not named her to any specific government position.

      • ducktree says:

        Personally, I would have trouble casting any shade on Obama’s cultivation of his court and cabinet candidates that require senate confirmation during Mitch McConnell’s reign of error over the conduct of such Senate hearings.

        That goes double for the comments I’ve seen that RBG coulda shoulda resigned while Obama was still in office so he could nominate a (young) replacement while he was still in office. REALLY??

        That’s patently ridiculous.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          No, it’s not. But it’s also water under the bridge.

          We start building with what’s left on the building site today, never mind what was there before the rains came.

        • pdaly says:

          Water under the bridge, as Earl says.
          But for timeline accuracy, the Democratic Party was in the majority at the time. Sen. Harry Reid (D) was Senate Majority Leader during the first six years of Obama’s presidency.

          • Molly Pitcher says:

            And I would remind you that Hillary Clinton won the ’16 popular vote as expected. She just missed a couple of electors that no one anticipated, so RBG retiring would have seemed unnecessary prior to the election.

    • ducktree says:

      If President-elect Biden (I just got a chill typing that) gets anywhere near the Rahm, he’s a f’ing retard (to re-issue a coined phrase).

      Just my $0.02.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Concur about Rahm, he’s a sleazy opportunist. No need for him or Kasich who is a RWNJ in most of his policies. If that is what Biden goes for, then why not Lieberman too?

        • vvv says:

          NBC local news here in Chi had a story on the possibility of Rahm going to the Cabinet.

          My first thought – in light of *This Week with George S.*, is, might as well bring Christie with.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Wisconsin is all over Michigan. Never mind. There’s a premise that Biden and establishment Dems, like the House leadership, need to get more comfortable with.

      Joe Biden overpromised the unity he can deliver without cooperation from the GOP, which he will NEVER get. Republicans will obstruct him at every turn, then brag about “Joe’s” failures. It’s baked in (as is the GOP complaining about Democratic budget deficits). No compromise, no moderate, Republican-lite Cabinet appointment will appease Wall Street or get Joe Biden within a mile of Lucy’s football, so long as Mitch is holding it.

      By all means, offer bipartisanship and compromise, if only to show the GOP’s bad faith. (That will take some decent PR from the Dems.) PLAN on doing without GOP cooperation. Realize that whatever vocalizations Durbin and Manchin are engaging in will NOT persuade Mitch the Silverback to cooperate with any troop but his own.

      • pdaly says:

        I’m hoping Obama means in this preface to his new book that he has come to understand that there should be a limit to compromise with the Republicans. If yes, then maybe he’ll pass on the advice to Biden. Not sure why Obama still gives glowing marks to Rahm Emanuel elsewhere in the book according to a Washington Post book review.

        “I confess there have been times during the course of writing this book, as I reflected on my presidency and all that’s happened since, when I’ve had to ask myself whether I was too tempered in speaking the truth as I saw it, too cautious in either word or deed, convinced as I was that by appealing to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature, I stood a greater chance of leading us in the direction of the America we’ve been promised.”

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Obama did a great deal and achieved many firsts, of which he is justifiably proud. But according to his classmates, his cautious centrism – his sixth sense for and keeping to the existing consensus – has been a consistent trait since HLS.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I think he adhered to a cautious centrism because America is so racist, not because, for a brief moment, we appeared not to be. Time and Covid may change that in him. I hope so: we need good leadership wherever we can find it.

      • Nehoa says:

        Maybe Biden can have a talk with Mitch McConnell that goes a bit like this:
        Mitch, we’ve known each other for what seems like forever. You are a treasured colleague. But here’s the thing, in consideration of how you allowed Trump and Ron (Johnson) and Lindsey (Graham) to shit on my son Hunter and me, I am going to have the DOJ and others do a full review of your (wife’s) family’s dealings. If it is all good, great. I will be happy for you, but if not, think about how you want to enjoy your remaining years. Covid’s out there you know. Bad things can happen to old dudes like us.
        That would be playing under GOP rules.

      • timbo says:

        Are you high? The US Ambassador to Great Britain isn’t likely to be treated as a joke by the British any time soon.

        • Nehoa says:

          No. Kasich is not a joke. I don’t like his policies, but he is a reasonably competent person. If there is a political need to reward him, the UK ambassadorship is a decent option. Prestige position, but in a chain of command. And the Tories will talk to him.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Don’t be silly. Occasionally, the US sends to the Court of St. James’s a talented ambassador. More often, though, it sends wealthy presidential patrons, with dismally few qualifications. Woody Johnson comes to mind.

          The premise seems to be that London is a great place for shopping and dining, doesn’t require learning a second language or culture [wrong], and because everything runs like clockwork, regardless of who’s nominally running it.

  12. Rugger9 says:

    OT: I see that the “Million MAGA March” fell short by more than 90% of their projection, but apparently Kayleigh can’t count either on top of her other “qualities”.

    • Rugger9 says:

      More OT: it seems Kanye’s leaving the USA because DJT lost. Does anyone else get reminded of the Olympic hockey final of USA vs. Canada where the loser got Bieber?

  13. Valley girl says:

    Interesting series of tweets on The Town Hall on Presidential Incapacity (Zoom) from John M. Talmadge, MD

    Town Hall: Psychiatrist/neurologist James Merikangas MD: Dr. Merikangas is speaking in some detail about Trump’s strange, mysterious medical history, much of which is hidden. (This is “live” in real time.) Says Trump shows signs of dementia. #Presidementia

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      I wish I had known about this “Town Hall on 25th Amendment & Presidential Incapacity “, I would definitely have tuned in. They concluded that Trump is unfit to serve out his term and that the citizenry should contact their representatives and demand the instituting of the 25th Amendment.

  14. tryggth says:

    I’m fascinated by the firings/replacements that have and not happened.

    – DOD/NSA (pretty immediate)
    – Haspel (nope, in spite her supposed her purported obstruction –
    – Wray (nope)

    What is going on here? So fast on SecDef but no “You fired” tweet for Haspel and the insta-declassifiable info she is “blocking”.

    I figure Haspel has a deadman switch. But the DOD/NSA thing is a puzzlement. Could it be they are on a house cleaning mission? If so, my money is on MBS.

Comments are closed.