Trump enters the stage

Another likely scenario, was this another international set up? Is there some measure of credibility to it?

1 Opinion
Prelude To World War III – OpEd
September 11, 2018 Eric Zuesse* 0 Comments
By Eric Zuesse*

Unless Syria will simply hand its most heavily pro-jihadist province, Idlib, to adjoining Turkey, which claims to have 30,000 troops there and is planning to add 20,000 more, World War III will probably happen soon, and here is why:

Russia’s troops are in Syria at the invitation of Syria’s Government and they have provided crucial assistance to restore the Government’s control over areas that the jihadists (sometimes called “Radical Islamic Terrorists” or otherwise) had seized. Consequently, unlike the Turks and the Americans, who are invaders of Syria, Russia is instead a defender of Syria, and is committed to doing there only what the Syrian Government authorizes it to do and what Russia is willing to do there.

Right now, the Trump Administration has committed itself to prohibiting Syria (and its allies) from retaking control of Idlib, which is the only province that was more than 90% in favor of Al Qaeda and of ISIS and against the Government at the start of the ‘civil war’ in Syria. Idlib is even more pro-jihadist now, because almost all of the surviving jihadists in Syria have sought refuge there — and the Government freely has bussed them there in order to minimize the amount of “human shield” hostage-taking by them in the other provinces. Countless innocent lives were saved this way.

Both Democratic and Republican U.S. federal officials and former officials are overwhelmingly supportive of U.S. President Trump’s newly announced determination to prohibit Syria from retaking control of that heavily jihadist province, and they state such things about Idlib as:

It has become a dumping ground for some of the hardcore jihadists who were not prepared to settle for some of the forced agreements that took place, the forced surrenders that took place elsewhere. … Where do people go when they’ve reached the last place that they can go? What’s the refuge after the last refuge? That’s the tragedy that they face.

That happened to be an Obama Administration official expressing support for the jihadists, and when he was asked by his interviewer “Did the world fail Syria?” he answered “Sure. I mean, there’s no doubt about it. I mean, the first person who failed Syria was President Assad himself.”

The U.S. Government in 2003 said that Saddam Hussein had failed Iraq and so America and its allies invaded and occupied there in 2003; and then America and its allies said that Muammar Qaddafi had failed Libyans and so invaded and occupied there in 2011; but, unlike Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, neither of those two heads-of-state was backed by Russia, and Assad is. That’s the main difference between him and those others. But the U.S. Government still demands ‘victory’ there; and, so, the world stands at the brink of WW III, the war to end all wars and (unlike its two predecessors) to end ourselves.

Therefore, unless Assad will simply hand Idlib over to adjoining Turkey, there will be war between the U.S. and Russia over Idlib. Since neither side will publicly admit its defeat in that U.S.-Russia war, the loser in it will naturally invade the other; and, regardless of whether the U.S. or Russia will be the first to do that (go nuclear), each of the two sides will still be able to annihilate the other after the other’s sudden blitz nuclear attack; and the end-result will be not only an unprecedentedly nuclear-contaminated planet, but a nuclear winter following it, in which agriculture will collapse, and the survivors will wish that they weren’t.

The way for the plan to avert that outcome to be carried out would be:

Assad and Putin both will announce that due to the complaints from the U.S. Government and from the United Nations and from the Turkish Government, Syria will give up Idlib province, and will construct on the border between it and the adjoining areas of Syria, a DMZ or De-Militarized Zone, so that not only will the residents in Idlib be safe from any attack by Syria and its allies (such as America and its allies have been demanding), but Syrians — in all the others of Syria’s provinces — will likewise be safe against any continued attacks by the jihadists that have concentrated themselves in Idlib.

This way, Turkey’s President Erdogan can safely keep his 50,000 troops in Idlib if he wishes; America’s President Trump can claim victory in Syria and finally fulfill his long-promised intention to end the U.S. occupation of (most of the jihadist-controlled) parts of Syria (which they’ve occupied), and maybe WW III can be avoided, or, at least, postponed, maybe even so that people living today won’t be dying-off from WW III and its after-effects.

If this peaceful path to ending the prelude to WW III — to avoiding the jump off a nuclear cliff — succeeds, then the world will be able to continue debating who was right and who was wrong in all of this. But, otherwise, that debate will simply be terminated by the war itself, and everyone will end up losing.

Here is how these and associated matters are being taught to school students in the United States. It’s a magazine that’s handed out free to school students in the U.S. to teach them the ‘history’ behind these current events, though it conflicts with the actual history behind them: but, of course, those children won’t know that history, because it’s not being taught to them.

*Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010.

Enjoy the article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.
PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!

← India’s ‘Neighborhood First’ Policy Unravels With A Spur In Nepal-China Relations – AnalysisSwitch In Climatic Factors Controlling Vegetation Dynamics On Tibetan Plateau →
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest
The Kremlin, Moscow, Russia.
1 Opinion

Donald Trump Commemorates 9/11 With Attack On FBI And DOJ Before Delivering Shanksville Speech

POLITICS
Trump reportedly thinks getting impeached after losing the midterms would help him win in 2020
Alex Lockie Sep 12, 2018, 7:02 AM ET
Donald Trump
Win McNamee/Getty ImagesPresident Donald Trump.
President Donald Trump has reportedly woken up to the possibility of being impeached by Democrats but thinks he can play the situation toward a 2020 reelection.
If he is impeached but not removed from office, the news website Axios said Wednesday, Trump would try to play the victim card and paint Democrats as having unfairly attacked him.

Respite:

What comes in as inspirational tid bits?

Since early spring had project to read -visible & invisible by Mearlieu .Ponty and did not get around to it, but connections of the kind M. Polanyi characterises as ‘tacit knowledge’ is making them for me

And again the film - - BLADE RUNNER, a Philip Dick original , thouches on the concept of beyond the postmodern, in visual ways, which closes the gap between the visual architecture architecture of the visible and the invisible in ways , where the realization of it can no longer imagined in post modern terms, where the hidden can still be unearthed with some kind of.sense of intelligent positivity, or nominally reduced , existentially held
bracket.

This habors in the age paranoia, the distrust of the control by the controlled, and the rise of thecontroller

Hence it figures, that Trump would classify fear, as the ultimate source of control.

Trump the ultimate actor of deception, is really the very personification of the managed genius. And so, he enters the stage of post modernism.

The full circle of the mantra: to see is to exist has come full circle.

In this sense, Heidegger’s ontological support of some kind of continuum reduced through an so I-philosophical
sense, obliterated both language and the logic through which it transpires

This is why the great evil genius of Descartes, is bound to serve IT, as a commanded relic of the dual aspect , supported through the eons, both not one or the other, a hoped for fateful wish, to reinstall that which no aesthetic installation has been able to do.

The breakdown can not here-be restructured nor held in brackets any more, the washout is inevitable.

The new world order is an introjective project, and that such can come about, no longer rests in uncertainty.

New:

Fox News and talk radio show host Sean Hannity is a known ally and supporter of President Donald Trump, often using his various media platforms to offer praise or even policy advice for the president.

When talking to a listener who called into his radio show Tuesday afternoon, Hannity said he expects the president to fire special counsel Robert Mueller and end the investigation into Russian election interference “sooner rather than later,” potentially after Hurricane Florence passes. Given Hannity and Trump reportedly talk so regularly that some White House staffers, according to The Washington Post, have dubbed the conservative media personality the president’s unofficial chief of staff, it remains to be seen whether Hannity is offering the president his personal advice or if he’s simply expressing wishful thinking.

A listener posed the question to Hannity of whether Trump can and should put an end to the Mueller investigation since there have been no crimes brought against him.

Multiple former Trump aides and associates have pleaded guilty to crimes stemming from Mueller’s investigation, in addition to his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort being convicted. Dozens of Russian nationals and Russian intelligence officers have been indicted for their roles in election meddling. The crimes allegedly committed by the former Trump aides and associates were not directly related to election interference and were mostly related to campaign finance violations, tax and bank fraud and taking money from foreign governments.

“Listen, I think all of that’s going to happen,” Hannity said about whether he thought Trump would end the investigation and fire Mueller. The transcript and audio of a portion of Hannity’s Tuesday radio show was published by Media Matters for America. “I think it’s going to happen sooner than later.”

Hannity went on to explain that he believed Trump would not make such a move around the anniversary of 9/11 and with Hurricane Florence barreling toward the Carolinas as a Category 4 storm.

“But afterwards, I would expect that he will do that,” Hannity said.

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

It’s unclear what knowledge, or lack thereof, Hannity is using to make his prediction.

Phone calls between Hannity and Trump are frequent occurrences, discussing everything from Hannity’s show to Trump’s frustration with the Mueller investigation and to what the president should tweet, according to more than a dozen friends, advisers and associates of Trump and Hannity who told The Washington Post in April.

The Daily Beast also reported in February that the pair had frequent phone conversations about whether the president should release a controversial GOP memo by Congressman Devin Nunes that was critical of both the FBI and Justice Department.

It was revealed the two men even shared the same attorney at one point, Michael Cohen, who has since pleaded guilty to eight charges of campaign finance violations and tax and bank fraud that also stemmed from Mueller’s investigation.

“The bottom line is, during the heat of the campaign when relationships are forged, [Hannity] was always there, offering good advice, in person and on television,” former deputy Trump campaign manager David Bossie told The Post. “The president sees [Hannity] as an incredibly smart and articulate spokesman for the agenda.”

This public announcement sounds incredible, given the ability to compress the sequence of developments in less then 18 months of the current presidency.
It either reinforces the idea of general philosophical suppression ad. absurdity into extreme nominalism, through toward an unsurpassed deontological bypass of the center, or an equally unprecendent works of an unhinged consequantiality of manifest destiny, unable to harness the immeasurable intermediaries within the workings of political process, literally trumped by constitutionally effects.

This binary process defies the very workings of constitutional Democrat y, as apprehended by the founding fathers.

Here is a totally and diametrically opposed opinion, by now, completely credible ; entirely dependent on the credibility of the Steele dossier:

POLITICS & POLICY
The Mueller Charade
By CONRAD BLACK
September 12, 2018 6:30 AM

President Trump speaks at the South Lawn of the White House, July 27, 2018. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)
The outcome of the midterms may depend on how quickly the administration can counter-attack on the legal front.
The almost unnoticed fact in the latest Democratic assault on the Trump administration is that it is based entirely on charges of confusion, the circus, incoherence, and nastiness. These themes never have to be hammered very long before the faithful take up the incantation about impeachment, but these aren’t impeachable, even if the charges were true. The Resistance has abandoned the accusation of impeachable offenses. The media barely noticed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s acceptance of written answers to questions about collusion, or Rudolph Giuliani’s assertion that there would be no discussion of obstruction of justice, that there has been no obstruction, and that if Mueller thinks he has evidence of any, he should present it. Everyone now knows that the entire Trump–Russian collusion argument was a complete fabrication on the basis of the Steele dossier, which was a pack of lies from A to Z, and, of course, was commissioned and financed by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, through a law firm and Fusion GPS. In terms of ingenious political treachery, Mrs. Clinton and her entourage scored an immense success in subverting high levels of the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department and FBI to pursue this canard with the zeal they did.

On what has emerged to date, fanatically anti-Trump figures in Justice and the FBI swallowed Steele’s story and invested in it so heavily they severely compromised the institutions that employed them. Once Trump was elected, instead of letting the ruse die quietly, they swallowed harder and set out to claim that the election result was fraudulent because of the illegal Trump–Russian collusion. Former National Intelligence director James Clapper announced just two months ago that he believed the Russians had determined the election result, contradicting James Comey’s view. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, proclaimed 18 months ago that a thousand Russian canvassers had swung Wisconsin to Trump. The apparently thoroughly Trump-deranged John Brennan, former CIA director, has been routinely accusing the president of treason for almost two years. The 2016 Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, mused about whether the president’s son, son-in-law, and former campaign manager were guilty of treason because they met with a Russian lawyer who wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act (nothing to do with the election).

Hillary Clinton must have been serenely confident that the source, quality, and funding of the Steele dossier would never see the light of day. In her memoir of the election, What Happened (not a question), she directly blames former FBI director James Comey for “shivving” her three times (two of the occasions were exonerations of her questionable appropriateness), and Donald Trump’s semi-treasonable collaboration with the Russian government, and she quoted Steele in support of this. When the fact came to light that her campaign had funded this nonsense for about $9 million, she breezily said that it was “campaign information” but accurate anyway. (Treason applies only when collaboration is with a country with which the betrayed country is at war.)

It was the dirtiest political trick in American history, but, in fairness to Mrs. Clinton, I doubt if she intended to do more than throw muck at her opponent in the last days of the election, since the Billy Bush tape had not, as had been expected, knock him out. When she lost, as Steele himself was still, with the aid of some officials, padding around the less reputable media pushing his dossier, Mrs. Clinton seized on it to explain her inexplicable defeat and threw in poor old Comey, who had bent his giraffe-like frame over backwards to exonerate her on the emails debacle, where she almost surely lied to a federal official, Comey in particular. Martha Stewart was sent to prison for less, and seems to have violated serious statutes. This was when Peter Strzok had finished whitewashing Clinton for Comey and jumped to trying to inculpate Trump. He wrote, early on to his girlfriend and workmate, Lisa Page, of the collusion argument, that there was “probably no there there.” Yet this purposeless beast of an investigation of something that everyone who knew anything about it knew did not happen is still continuing.

In their desperation to keep the president on his back foot until the midterm elections, the Democrats joined the Never Trump chorus in the McCain obsequies, and the habitually discredited political gossip Bob Woodward, reinforced by anonymous informants recruited or invented by the New York Times, wrote that the Trump White House was in chaos (irrelevant if the Constitution is not being violated and the policies work). Paid plants heckled at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings where Democratic senators reenacted a fictitious movie about a first-century slave revolt to protest the confidentiality of documents that had already been released, and Barack Obama hit the trail to rewrite the history of his broadly unsuccessful presidency. Even sensible and moderate commentators who don’t like Trump went back on autocue to announce that this was “the darkest hour” of Trump’s administration, as they have, every six weeks or so since the executive order about travelers from terrorism-plagued or -sponsoring countries in February 2017: Charlottesville, Helsinki, Manafort and Cohen, etc. Trump is about to declassify what congressional committees have been seeking, and the anti-Trump media will have real problems maintaining their implacable righteousness. By then, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe may have been indicted, and the charges won’t stop with him.

I recommend clemency. I don’t believe in a deep state, just an arrogant, smothering, bipartisan mindset that easily construed self-defense as service of the national interest, even when it involved criminal conduct. In this respect it does bear some comparison with the conduct of Nixon underlings in the Watergate era. The mystery is why Robert Mueller, for all his experience and vaunted probity, chose a gang of rabid Trump-haters to conduct this operation, and why, when he must have realized it was a wild goose chase, he didn’t fold it up or turn it into an investigation of the sleazy conduct of Trump’s enemies, which, given the Russian connection, would have been within his mandate. There is now evidence that Steele, even after he was fired by the FBI for leaking material, via senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr “and his lovely wife,” as Trump calls Mrs. Ohr (who worked at Fusion with Steele), moved straight to Mueller’s special-counsel team. Mueller may have mishandled this so badly, he ensnares himself in the misconduct of those who commissioned him. Mueller has prolonged this false cloud over the administration while using his authoritarian office to try to terrorize Paul Manafort into a false inculpation of the president, has mouse-trapped a couple of lesser figures (14 days in jail for George Papadopoulos), and purported to indict a number of Russians who will never appear in an American court and whose names could have been taken from the Moscow telephone directory.

The outcome of the midterm elections may depend on how quickly the administration can counter-attack on the legal front. When the Mueller charade is finally out of the way, everyone involved in the false applications for a FISA surveillance warrant against junior Trump campaign helper Carter Page will face the music, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and very prominent members of the Obama administration. Whatever happens in November, all this will unravel. The combination of the jungle ruthlessness of high American politics with the idealism of the Constitution occasionally creates bizarre and sordid dramas. Eventually, just when the pious claptrap about no one being above the law becomes almost insufferable, the puritanical conscience of America rises like a cobra and strikes the wrongdoers. The twist here is that the hunted president, who has broken no laws, will make the kill. It’s reality politics, wending toward a surprising climax.

IN THE NEWS: ‘[WATCH] GOP Faces Deadline Crunch as Midterms Near’

CONRAD BLACK — Conrad Black’s latest book is Donald J. Trump, A President Like No Other. @conradmblack
MORE IN POLITICS & POLICY
Save the E-Cigs
In Defense of Norm Macdonald
The Online Left Learns to Love Conspiracy Theories
Why I Changed the Way I Write about Police Shootings

How credible really is the Steele Dossier?

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter said she believes President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, authored an anonymous op-ed that claimed there is a network of individuals in the administration who are seeking to stave off the president’s “worst inclinations.”

“Because he and Ivanka are going to have to go back to the Upper East Side and go to the Hamptons,” Coulter explained in an interview with the Daily Beast published on Thursday.

“They’re probably worried that Trump will be removed within the next few years,” Coulter said. “They had just gone to the [Sen. John] McCain funeral, and [the op-ed] was right after Labor Day, so they were probably feeling wistful for the Hamptons. And the only way they can get back in is if they can say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re the ones who stopped the wall.’”

A conspiracy theory from Ann Coulter, bizaar or believable or not, fact or fake? Who can judge in a failing-fast- justice system ?

The plot has thickened to an extent, that even conspiracy theories have conspiracy theories. So many heads have fallen along the way, that the clear message is : You be your own judge and jury, there is no end to the bottom less pit of a cesspool, and beware, not to go there, no less look in there.

Now was this a clever ploy to atomize authority so the can start branding people?

Paranoia rains: could it happen?

POLITICO Magazine
Menu
Google Plus
Facebook
Twitter

A radiation symbol with Trump’s photo is shown.
Politico illustration: Getty/iStock

THE FRIDAY COVER

How Obama Made It Easier for Trump to Launch a Nuke
Maybe we should talk about this?

By MARC AMBINDER September 14, 2018
Facebook Twitter Google + Email Comment Print
Most folks push to the back of their minds the harrowing notion that a single person could, with one command, launch nuclear Armageddon. And even when we do think about it, we still think in Cold War metaphors: Nuclear attacks have to be big. They have to destroy cities. They have to kill millions.

In fact, the opposite is true: America’s nuclear doctrine—the thing that actually tells our warfighters how to draw up the military’s nuclear war plans—makes it more likely that a modern president will be tempted to order a nuclear strike in response to a non-nuclear attack. And it’s now far easier to do so than ever before in the history of humankind.

Story Continued Below

ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Let me pause for a second to remind you that the president today is Donald J. Trump.

In Bob Woodward’s new book on the Trump administration, the author recounts a scene where, in a fit of anger at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against innocents, the president orders Defense Secretary James Mattis to kill the dictator. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump is alleged to have said. According to Woodward, Mattis ignored the order, or he didn’t perceive it as a direct order, and instead presented the president with a menu of more limited options.

That moment has emerged as one of the most eye-opening in Woodward’s book, largely because of the shock that a secretary of defense would derail a direct order from the commander in chief. But for national security experts there’s another, potentially scarier reading on what happened in that room: That order could well have been nuclear. And in that case, only a bureaucrat willing to disobey an elected president would stand between us and the first nuclear attack in 70 years.

Story Continued Below

ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
This scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Thanks to upgrades to our nuclear systems under President Barack Obama, and recent shifts in Pentagon protocol, it has never been easier for an American president to launch a tactical nuclear attack anywhere on the globe. We know that our current nuclear war plans—OPLAN 8010-12—specifically envision a scenario where the president orders a limited nuclear strike to deter proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. Sarin gas qualifies. So, the Syria crisis is one of the scenarios in which that might happen.

The bigger conversation we should be having about Trump’s Assad order isn’t whether the president is fit or not, or whether he commands the loyalty of his own Cabinet. The conversation to have now is why the U.S. president—no matter who it is—still has an unchecked ability to launch a nuclear attack in the first place.

Story Continued Below

ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT


This question has become far more urgent because our nuclear protocols have changed in ways that the public doesn’t yet appreciate. Until very recently, the chart-topping superstars of the nuclear world were called “Major Attack Options.” These were nuclear-attack plans aimed at adversaries that the Pentagon considers “peer” or “near-peer” nations—the other big global powers. Examples might have been: Destroy all major Russian second-strike nuclear facilities. Another: Cripple the Chinese industrial base. These were blockbuster attack plans designed largely for their deterrent effects—discouraging America’s main foes from any significant geopolitical mischief. The actual attacks would have been colossal: Intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from the United States, bearing warheads packing the equivalent of 300,000 tons of TNT. Nukes in tubes on submarines or attached to the underbellies of fighter bombers would constitute our “second strike” capability, in case the enemy managed to destroy the missiles first. Given the power of our adversaries, one of the biggest guardrails preventing a strike was the likely scale of the response—miscalculate, and millions of our own tribe could die, too. All of this is standard stuff. Deterrence 101.

Around the end of the Cold War, a new set of adversaries was added to the target base: WMD proliferators, including smaller rogue regimes that might be developing their own nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. North Korea, or Syria, or Iran, at certain points, might find themselves subject to a similar apocalypse. A nuclear attack on one of these regimes might not trigger the same scale of retaliation as an attack on a peer nation, but it still came with the potential for horrifying unintended casualties. Any strike in this category—even a “limited” one—would cause huge amounts of collateral damage, and this again was a powerful disincentive for any president to launch a nuke.

Story Continued Below

But in 2018, America’s nuclear arsenal is starting to look very different than it once did, and the scenarios that might prompt the expenditure of a weapon have multiplied. The catalogue of weapons that President Trump has at his beck and call now, and will have into a possible second term, include nuclear gravity bombs like the one ostentatiously tested in Nevada in June by the Air Force. Called B61-12s, they’ve been upgraded with ground-penetrating firepower, hyper-accurate guidance systems and variable yield technology.

Story Continued Below

These enhancements mean that a nuke could be used on a relatively narrow target, such as the command and control facilities that Russia would need to strike at its former satellites, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. And they also increase the likelihood that a president might be tempted to use one elsewhere, for whatever military or even political purpose he wanted. The U.S. now also has the technology to attach tiny, precise, low-yield warheads to the newest cruise missiles it’s developing—the type that could be launched from somewhere in Europe, at, say, Syria. (Deploying these weapons is currently banned by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty—but the U.S. believes Russia has already violated this treaty, and the U.S leadership could decide, via a classified presidential policy directive, to experimentally move a few of these to Europe, just in case.) A third toy for presidents: low-yield cruise missiles launched from submarines.

The Pentagon says, with some credibility, that these weapons are needed as a new kind of deterrent for a new variety of warfare. They argue that advances in Russian military strategy, such as Moscow’s theory of “coercive escalation,” might lead President Vladimir Putin or his successor to use tactical nuclear weapons to claw back territory in Europe, assuming the U.S. would not have—or did not have—the weapons in its arsenal to respond to a “limited” challenge.

Story Continued Below

But in the end, nuclear deterrence is still based on psychology, not technology. The bad guys have to believe that our weapons are actually weapons we would actually use in actual conflicts, or else they’re going to do things counter to our interests. The big problem is that the technology we use to deliver nuclear weapons has advanced to the point where a president might not find all that much reason to worry about using a nuclear weapon in a real conflict. If she or he can be assured that the radioactive fallout would be minimal, the threat to civilians basically zero and the scope of the destruction precisely tailored, then many of the disincentives fall away.


Story Continued Below

It may seem strange that Obama—a man who called passionately for a world without any nuclear weapons at all—was responsible for this dangerous suite of upgrades. But to achieve his nuclear-diplomacy goals, he had to expend enormous political capital. In 2010, he persuaded the Senate to pass a nuclear arms treaty with Russia reducing the number of warheads each country was allowed to keep at the ready. But the tradeoff, negotiated primarily with Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans’ point person on all things nuclear at the time, was that Obama essentially signed off on the purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of upgrades to the nuclear arsenal—upgrades that made it more likely that a successor will one day use one of the damned things.

Obama wanted to address this. Several of his advisers have told me that he intended to kick off a serious public debate in his second term about how the weapons might be used and who could legitimately authorize their use. In the end, he ran out of time and bandwidth.

Story Continued Below

Nuclear planners use a term, Directed/Adaptive Planning Capability Options, whose official meaning is classified. But the essence is this: Given the requirement to adapt to a worldwide crisis situation, the president can, within 8 hours, direct a nuclear weapon delivered to any location on Earth. The president can order one of these things alone, and then, without consulting anymore—not his secretary of defense, not his national security adviser, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff—he can release his finger from the trigger. All it would take is a phone call.

The call could from a regular, non-secure cell phone if he wanted. On the other end would be the Emergency Actions controller working near a console at one of America’s nuclear command post facilities—a set of (at least) four that are online around the clock. There would be a quick exchange of authentication codes, and then—in less than the time it takes the president to fire off a tweet—a nuclear release order could be formatted and transmitted to the forces.

Story Continued Below

So if indeed there are forces inside the Executive Office of the Presidency who are seeking to thwart the will of the duly elected president, for reasons noble or nefarious; if breaking the brittle but enduring compacts that allow the most powerful person on the planet to exercise free reign over an enormous range of executive and deadly powers is now a rule, then let me suggest we use this period of creative destruction to ask some new questions.

That is: Is the ability of the president or the United States to order a nuclear strike against anyone, anything, anywhere on Earth, without being forced to consult with anyone who might urge him otherwise, ethical? Can we come up with a better system?

Story Continued Below

Thanks to time, money and ingenuity, America’s nuclear command and control system is more reliable than it used to be, but it is nowhere near as reliable as it should be, as on the record testimony from Air Force generals and others regularly demonstrate. Capabilities have “atrophied,” Gen. Robin Rand, the head of the Air Force’s nuclear strike command, told Congress in March. Critical warning systems have security flaws. Newer technology might be vulnerable to cyberattack and spoofing. Recently, CNN reported, somewhat opaquely, that Secretary of Defense Mattis was so concerned about the state of our nuclear communications that he ordered a large-scale, classified reordering of who gets what nuclear orders.

Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Hard to say, because our politicians tend to be completely ignorant of these arrangements. Voters don’t ask about them. They don’t know what to ask. We have focused on the “demand” side of the equation—the nukes and how to use them—with only one congressional hearing, to my knowledge, on the more important question, which is: Under what circumstances do we, the American people, want the president and the president alone, to be able to order any nuclear strike?

Story Continued Below

Harry Truman first asserted the sole authority to decide the question for himself, and aside from presidents secretly pre-delegating this power in the event they’re killed or can’t be found, Congress has rarely raised a peep about this use of executive authority, which resides in the Constitution’s second article. But there is no law that codifies this, or qualifies it, or even figures out how to mesh it with Congress’s constitutional power to declare war. And though anyone in the military can refuse to execute an illegal order, there is very little guidance on what an illegal nuclear order might look like.


Story Continued Below

Obama could hardly have imagined he needed to spend time on the softer side of our nuclear doctrine—the laws and rules that govern the use of these deadly weapons—because he could not envision the United States electing a president whose temperament was so manifestly unsuited for the hair-trigger, always-on-alert posture the high priests of America’s nuclear weapons complex have spent 70 years refining.

Now we know that’s possible. So why not require that, in all but the most urgent situations, the president consult with select members of Congress during the process of deciding whether to launch even a single, targeted strike? And we might even debate whether we have a duty to humanity not to retaliate, even if it means absorbing our own casualties.

Politically untenable? Not really. A line in the National Defense Authorization Act would be sufficient to kick off a debate, and if the president decided to ignore the will of Congress, he or she would at least be forced to so do in public—pushing to the forefront of our minds the still-existential risks posed by not just the proliferation of nuclear weapons but the advancements in their accuracy, their quality, their deadliness, and the willingness that a president, perhaps in anger, might one day order their use.

Story Continued Below

Counting on James Mattis to ignore such a command seems like a risk most Americans wouldn’t want to take.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Marc Ambinder, a contributing editor at The Week, The Atlantic and GQ, is working on a book about nuclear war scares.

This article tagged under:
Nuclear Weapons Barack Obama Donald Trump The Friday Cover
SHOW COMMENTS
More from POLITICO Magazine
Michael Avenatti
2020

Michael Avenatti Is Winning the 2020 Democratic Primary
By BILL SCHER
A radiation symbol with Trump’s photo is shown.
THE FRIDAY COVER

How Obama Made It Easier for Trump to Launch a Nuke
By MARC AMBINDER

There is a twist developing. Thete is a conditionally bad possible development if Trump is impeached, or resigns, or dismissed for incompetence: and there is a good reason: SPence may be even a worse choice :

Rolling Stone
HOME
POLITICS
POLITICS NEWS
If You’re Hoping Trump Will Be Impeached, Be Careful What You Wish For
We could be looking at a decade of President Mike Pence

DAVID S. COHEN
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 9:53AM EDT

Mike Pence, Donald Trump

Evan Vucci/AP/REX/Shutterstock
Are you rooting hard for President Trump to be impeached and removed from office? Or, as the anonymous New York Times op-ed last week discussed, hoping there will be an invocation of the (completely unrealistic) 25th Amendment? Or better yet, for him to hang his head in shame and resign?

If so, you’re certainly not alone, as every passing day there is new reason to doubt Trump’s competence and evidence linking him to criminal behavior is piling up. But there’s a huge risk: If Trump vacates the office, we could face almost 10 years of President Mike Pence. Is that something you really want?

After all, Pence is a true believer right-wing conservative. He is virulently anti-abortion and anti-gay rights and has a long history of slashing government programs. He once even had a talk radio show that he himself described as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”

Anyone with basic knowledge of the U.S. presidency and Constitution is probably a bit puzzled by the possibility of Pence serving 10 years, given the two-term (eight-year) limit.

Originally, there were no term limits for the presidency, but for a century and a half those who held the office followed George Washington’s model of serving only two terms. Until, that is, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four times in a row. He and his supporters argued that his continued service was needed during extraordinary times (World War II). After FDR died just months into his fourth term, the issue of term limits for the president became a national priority.

As a result, in 1951, the Constitution was amended. The 22nd Amendment now limits the president to two four-year terms: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”

How could Pence get around this limit and serve a possible 10 years total? The 22nd Amendment has something akin to small print. If someone becomes president by filling a vacancy in the office (such as when the president is impeached, resigns or dies) – but does so for less than two years – that person can run for office two more times, not just once.

In other words, if Pence became president anytime after noon on January 20th, 2019, he would be allowed to run for two more terms.

Of course, this is not a terribly likely scenario. But, as January 20th approaches, it’s not completely far-fetched either. Consider this. It is looking increasingly likely that the Democrats will take back the House this November 6th and maybe even the Senate (though that’s much less likely). The new Democratic-controlled Congress begins service on January 3rd. All it takes to impeach a president in the House is a majority vote. Given all that we know about President Trump, the House might act quickly and then send the impeachment to the Senate, which needs a two-thirds vote to remove the president – a much taller order.

Even under the most optimistic Democratic scenarios, the party will not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate. But maybe by this point, if there is in fact a big blue wave in November, enough Republican senators will have gotten the message that Trump is toxic. Or maybe other Republicans, after a big defeat in November, will look at Pence and see a stable (read: boring), staunch conservative who can redeem the Republican Party after the chaos of Trump. So, enough Republican Senators join the Democrats to get to two-thirds, removing Trump from office.

Or it could happen much quicker than that. Fearing bruising congressional investigations or even an imminent indictment, he could decide it’s smarter to resign, like President Nixon did, rather than suffer the consequences of a public airing of all that Special Counsel Robert Mueller – or even prosecutors in the Southern District of New York – have been gathering.

If he were to leave office in either of these ways, it would be entirely possible that Pence would just be a placeholder and the Democrats would take over after the 2020 election, like Gerald Ford after Nixon resigned. But it’s also possible that the country would feel massive relief from someone who, no matter what you think of Pence’s politics, is not Donald Trump. Would that translate into Pence winning national elections? Who knows, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that, just by virtue of not being Trump, Pence could get a huge boost.

If that were to happen, we could be facing Pence running for president twice after completing Trump’s first term and ultimately serving in the office for up to 10 years. When you read the fine print of the Constitution, that’s perfectly acceptable.

So, for those of us clamoring for Trump to be removed from office or resign in disgrace, we really have to be careful what we wish for.

Want more Rolling Stone? Sign up for our newsletter.
LEAVE A COMMENT

© 2018 PMC. All rights reserved.

[quote=“Meno_”]
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter said she believes President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, authored an anonymous op-ed that claimed there is a network of individuals in the administration who are seeking to stave off the president’s “worst inclinations.”

“Because he and Ivanka are going to have to go back to the Upper East Side and go to the Hamptons,” Coulter explained in an interview with the Daily Beast published on Thursday.

“They’re probably worried that Trump will be removed within the next few years,” Coulter said. “They had just gone to the [Sen. John] McCain funeral, and [the op-ed] was right after Labor Day, so they were probably feeling wistful for the Hamptons. And the only way they can get back in is if they can say, ‘Don’t worry, we’re the ones who stopped the wall.’”

A conspiracy theory from Ann Coulter, bizaar or believable or not, fact or fake? Who can judge in a failing-fast- justice system ?

The plot has thickened to an extent, that even conspiracy theories have conspiracy theories. So many heads have fallen along the way, that the clear message is : You be your own judge and jury, there is no end to the bottom less pit of a cesspool, and beware, not to go there, no less look in there.

Now was this a clever ploy to atomize authority so the can start branding people?

Paranoia rains: could it happen?

POLITICO Magazine
Menu
Google Plus
Facebook
Twitter

A radiation symbol with Trump’s photo is shown.
Politico illustration: Getty/iStock

THE FRIDAY COVER

How Obama Made It Easier for Trump to Launch a Nuke
Maybe we should talk about this?

By MARC AMBINDER September 14, 2018
Facebook Twitter Google + Email Comment Print
Most folks push to the back of their minds the harrowing notion that a single person could, with one command, launch nuclear Armageddon. And even when we do think about it, we still think in Cold War metaphors: Nuclear attacks have to be big. They have to destroy cities. They have to kill millions.

In fact, the opposite is true: America’s nuclear doctrine—the thing that actually tells our warfighters how to draw up the military’s nuclear war plans—makes it more likely that a modern president will be tempted to order a nuclear strike in response to a non-nuclear attack. And it’s now far easier to do so than ever before in the history of humankind.

Story Continued Below

ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Let me pause for a second to remind you that the president today is Donald J. Trump.

In Bob Woodward’s new book on the Trump administration, the author recounts a scene where, in a fit of anger at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against innocents, the president orders Defense Secretary James Mattis to kill the dictator. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump is alleged to have said. According to Woodward, Mattis ignored the order, or he didn’t perceive it as a direct order, and instead presented the president with a menu of more limited options.

That moment has emerged as one of the most eye-opening in Woodward’s book, largely because of the shock that a secretary of defense would derail a direct order from the commander in chief. But for national security experts there’s another, potentially scarier reading on what happened in that room: That order could well have been nuclear. And in that case, only a bureaucrat willing to disobey an elected president would stand between us and the first nuclear attack in 70 years.

Story Continued Below

ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
This scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Thanks to upgrades to our nuclear systems under President Barack Obama, and recent shifts in Pentagon protocol, it has never been easier for an American president to launch a tactical nuclear attack anywhere on the globe. We know that our current nuclear war plans—OPLAN 8010-12—specifically envision a scenario where the president orders a limited nuclear strike to deter proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. Sarin gas qualifies. So, the Syria crisis is one of the scenarios in which that might happen.

The bigger conversation we should be having about Trump’s Assad order isn’t whether the president is fit or not, or whether he commands the loyalty of his own Cabinet. The conversation to have now is why the U.S. president—no matter who it is—still has an unchecked ability to launch a nuclear attack in the first place.

Story Continued Below

ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT


This question has become far more urgent because our nuclear protocols have changed in ways that the public doesn’t yet appreciate. Until very recently, the chart-topping superstars of the nuclear world were called “Major Attack Options.” These were nuclear-attack plans aimed at adversaries that the Pentagon considers “peer” or “near-peer” nations—the other big global powers. Examples might have been: Destroy all major Russian second-strike nuclear facilities. Another: Cripple the Chinese industrial base. These were blockbuster attack plans designed largely for their deterrent effects—discouraging America’s main foes from any significant geopolitical mischief. The actual attacks would have been colossal: Intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from the United States, bearing warheads packing the equivalent of 300,000 tons of TNT. Nukes in tubes on submarines or attached to the underbellies of fighter bombers would constitute our “second strike” capability, in case the enemy managed to destroy the missiles first. Given the power of our adversaries, one of the biggest guardrails preventing a strike was the likely scale of the response—miscalculate, and millions of our own tribe could die, too. All of this is standard stuff. Deterrence 101.

Around the end of the Cold War, a new set of adversaries was added to the target base: WMD proliferators, including smaller rogue regimes that might be developing their own nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. North Korea, or Syria, or Iran, at certain points, might find themselves subject to a similar apocalypse. A nuclear attack on one of these regimes might not trigger the same scale of retaliation as an attack on a peer nation, but it still came with the potential for horrifying unintended casualties. Any strike in this category—even a “limited” one—would cause huge amounts of collateral damage, and this again was a powerful disincentive for any president to launch a nuke.

Story Continued Below

But in 2018, America’s nuclear arsenal is starting to look very different than it once did, and the scenarios that might prompt the expenditure of a weapon have multiplied. The catalogue of weapons that President Trump has at his beck and call now, and will have into a possible second term, include nuclear gravity bombs like the one ostentatiously tested in Nevada in June by the Air Force. Called B61-12s, they’ve been upgraded with ground-penetrating firepower, hyper-accurate guidance systems and variable yield technology.

Story Continued Below

These enhancements mean that a nuke could be used on a relatively narrow target, such as the command and control facilities that Russia would need to strike at its former satellites, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. And they also increase the likelihood that a president might be tempted to use one elsewhere, for whatever military or even political purpose he wanted. The U.S. now also has the technology to attach tiny, precise, low-yield warheads to the newest cruise missiles it’s developing—the type that could be launched from somewhere in Europe, at, say, Syria. (Deploying these weapons is currently banned by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty—but the U.S. believes Russia has already violated this treaty, and the U.S leadership could decide, via a classified presidential policy directive, to experimentally move a few of these to Europe, just in case.) A third toy for presidents: low-yield cruise missiles launched from submarines.

The Pentagon says, with some credibility, that these weapons are needed as a new kind of deterrent for a new variety of warfare. They argue that advances in Russian military strategy, such as Moscow’s theory of “coercive escalation,” might lead President Vladimir Putin or his successor to use tactical nuclear weapons to claw back territory in Europe, assuming the U.S. would not have—or did not have—the weapons in its arsenal to respond to a “limited” challenge.

Story Continued Below

But in the end, nuclear deterrence is still based on psychology, not technology. The bad guys have to believe that our weapons are actually weapons we would actually use in actual conflicts, or else they’re going to do things counter to our interests. The big problem is that the technology we use to deliver nuclear weapons has advanced to the point where a president might not find all that much reason to worry about using a nuclear weapon in a real conflict. If she or he can be assured that the radioactive fallout would be minimal, the threat to civilians basically zero and the scope of the destruction precisely tailored, then many of the disincentives fall away.


Story Continued Below

It may seem strange that Obama—a man who called passionately for a world without any nuclear weapons at all—was responsible for this dangerous suite of upgrades. But to achieve his nuclear-diplomacy goals, he had to expend enormous political capital. In 2010, he persuaded the Senate to pass a nuclear arms treaty with Russia reducing the number of warheads each country was allowed to keep at the ready. But the tradeoff, negotiated primarily with Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans’ point person on all things nuclear at the time, was that Obama essentially signed off on the purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of upgrades to the nuclear arsenal—upgrades that made it more likely that a successor will one day use one of the damned things.

Obama wanted to address this. Several of his advisers have told me that he intended to kick off a serious public debate in his second term about how the weapons might be used and who could legitimately authorize their use. In the end, he ran out of time and bandwidth.

Story Continued Below

Nuclear planners use a term, Directed/Adaptive Planning Capability Options, whose official meaning is classified. But the essence is this: Given the requirement to adapt to a worldwide crisis situation, the president can, within 8 hours, direct a nuclear weapon delivered to any location on Earth. The president can order one of these things alone, and then, without consulting anymore—not his secretary of defense, not his national security adviser, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff—he can release his finger from the trigger. All it would take is a phone call.

The call could from a regular, non-secure cell phone if he wanted. On the other end would be the Emergency Actions controller working near a console at one of America’s nuclear command post facilities—a set of (at least) four that are online around the clock. There would be a quick exchange of authentication codes, and then—in less than the time it takes the president to fire off a tweet—a nuclear release order could be formatted and transmitted to the forces.

Story Continued Below

So if indeed there are forces inside the Executive Office of the Presidency who are seeking to thwart the will of the duly elected president, for reasons noble or nefarious; if breaking the brittle but enduring compacts that allow the most powerful person on the planet to exercise free reign over an enormous range of executive and deadly powers is now a rule, then let me suggest we use this period of creative destruction to ask some new questions.

That is: Is the ability of the president or the United States to order a nuclear strike against anyone, anything, anywhere on Earth, without being forced to consult with anyone who might urge him otherwise, ethical? Can we come up with a better system?

Story Continued Below

Thanks to time, money and ingenuity, America’s nuclear command and control system is more reliable than it used to be, but it is nowhere near as reliable as it should be, as on the record testimony from Air Force generals and others regularly demonstrate. Capabilities have “atrophied,” Gen. Robin Rand, the head of the Air Force’s nuclear strike command, told Congress in March. Critical warning systems have security flaws. Newer technology might be vulnerable to cyberattack and spoofing. Recently, CNN reported, somewhat opaquely, that Secretary of Defense Mattis was so concerned about the state of our nuclear communications that he ordered a large-scale, classified reordering of who gets what nuclear orders.

Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Hard to say, because our politicians tend to be completely ignorant of these arrangements. Voters don’t ask about them. They don’t know what to ask. We have focused on the “demand” side of the equation—the nukes and how to use them—with only one congressional hearing, to my knowledge, on the more important question, which is: Under what circumstances do we, the American people, want the president and the president alone, to be able to order any nuclear strike?

Story Continued Below

Harry Truman first asserted the sole authority to decide the question for himself, and aside from presidents secretly pre-delegating this power in the event they’re killed or can’t be found, Congress has rarely raised a peep about this use of executive authority, which resides in the Constitution’s second article. But there is no law that codifies this, or qualifies it, or even figures out how to mesh it with Congress’s constitutional power to declare war. And though anyone in the military can refuse to execute an illegal order, there is very little guidance on what an illegal nuclear order might look like.


Story Continued Below

Obama could hardly have imagined he needed to spend time on the softer side of our nuclear doctrine—the laws and rules that govern the use of these deadly weapons—because he could not envision the United States electing a president whose temperament was so manifestly unsuited for the hair-trigger, always-on-alert posture the high priests of America’s nuclear weapons complex have spent 70 years refining.

Now we know that’s possible. So why not require that, in all but the most urgent situations, the president consult with select members of Congress during the process of deciding whether to launch even a single, targeted strike? And we might even debate whether we have a duty to humanity not to retaliate, even if it means absorbing our own casualties.

Politically untenable? Not really. A line in the National Defense Authorization Act would be sufficient to kick off a debate, and if the president decided to ignore the will of Congress, he or she would at least be forced to so do in public—pushing to the forefront of our minds the still-existential risks posed by not just the proliferation of nuclear weapons but the advancements in their accuracy, their quality, their deadliness, and the willingness that a president, perhaps in anger, might one day order their use.

Story Continued Below

Counting on James Mattis to ignore such a command seems like a risk most Americans wouldn’t want to take.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Marc Ambinder, a contributing editor at The Week, The Atlantic and GQ, is working on a book about nuclear war scares.

This article tagged under:
Nuclear Weapons Barack Obama Donald Trump The Friday Cover
SHOW COMMENTS
More from POLITICO Magazine
Michael Avenatti
2020

Michael Avenatti Is Winning the 2020 Democratic Primary
By BILL SCHER
A radiation symbol with Trump’s photo is shown.
THE FRIDAY COVER

How Obama Made It Easier for Trump to Launch a Nuke
By MARC AMBINDER

There is a twist developing. Thete is a conditionally bad possible development if Trump is impeached, or resigns, or dismissed for incompetence: and there is a good reason: SPence may be even a worse choice :

Rolling Stone
HOME
POLITICS
POLITICS NEWS
If You’re Hoping Trump Will Be Impeached, Be Careful What You Wish For
We could be looking at a decade of President Mike Pence

DAVID S. COHEN
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 9:53AM EDT

Mike Pence, Donald Trump

Evan Vucci/AP/REX/Shutterstock
Are you rooting hard for President Trump to be impeached and removed from office? Or, as the anonymous New York Times op-ed last week discussed, hoping there will be an invocation of the (completely unrealistic) 25th Amendment? Or better yet, for him to hang his head in shame and resign?

If so, you’re certainly not alone, as every passing day there is new reason to doubt Trump’s competence and evidence linking him to criminal behavior is piling up. But there’s a huge risk: If Trump vacates the office, we could face almost 10 years of President Mike Pence. Is that something you really want?

After all, Pence is a true believer right-wing conservative. He is virulently anti-abortion and anti-gay rights and has a long history of slashing government programs. He once even had a talk radio show that he himself described as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”

Anyone with basic knowledge of the U.S. presidency and Constitution is probably a bit puzzled by the possibility of Pence serving 10 years, given the two-term (eight-year) limit.

Originally, there were no term limits for the presidency, but for a century and a half those who held the office followed George Washington’s model of serving only two terms. Until, that is, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four times in a row. He and his supporters argued that his continued service was needed during extraordinary times (World War II). After FDR died just months into his fourth term, the issue of term limits for the president became a national priority.

As a result, in 1951, the Constitution was amended. The 22nd Amendment now limits the president to two four-year terms: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”

How could Pence get around this limit and serve a possible 10 years total? The 22nd Amendment has something akin to small print. If someone becomes president by filling a vacancy in the office (such as when the president is impeached, resigns or dies) – but does so for less than two years – that person can run for office two more times, not just once.

In other words, if Pence became president anytime after noon on January 20th, 2019, he would be allowed to run for two more terms.

Of course, this is not a terribly likely scenario. But, as January 20th approaches, it’s not completely far-fetched either. Consider this. It is looking increasingly likely that the Democrats will take back the House this November 6th and maybe even the Senate (though that’s much less likely). The new Democratic-controlled Congress begins service on January 3rd. All it takes to impeach a president in the House is a majority vote. Given all that we know about President Trump, the House might act quickly and then send the impeachment to the Senate, which needs a two-thirds vote to remove the president – a much taller order.

Even under the most optimistic Democratic scenarios, the party will not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate. But maybe by this point, if there is in fact a big blue wave in November, enough Republican senators will have gotten the message that Trump is toxic. Or maybe other Republicans, after a big defeat in November, will look at Pence and see a stable (read: boring), staunch conservative who can redeem the Republican Party after the chaos of Trump. So, enough Republican Senators join the Democrats to get to two-thirds, removing Trump from office.

Or it could happen much quicker than that. Fearing bruising congressional investigations or even an imminent indictment, he could decide it’s smarter to resign, like President Nixon did, rather than suffer the consequences of a public airing of all that Special Counsel Robert Mueller – or even prosecutors in the Southern District of New York – have been gathering.

If he were to leave office in either of these ways, it would be entirely possible that Pence would just be a placeholder and the Democrats would take over after the 2020 election, like Gerald Ford after Nixon resigned. But it’s also possible that the country would feel massive relief from someone who, no matter what you think of Pence’s politics, is not Donald Trump. Would that translate into Pence winning national elections? Who knows, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that, just by virtue of not being Trump, Pence could get a huge boost.

If that were to happen, we could be facing Pence running for president twice after completing Trump’s first term and ultimately serving in the office for up to 10 years. When you read the fine print of the Constitution, that’s perfectly acceptable.

So, for those of us clamoring for Trump to be removed from office or resign in disgrace, we really have to be careful what we wish for.

New today:

Trump Believes There’s a Coup’

PLUS: Bombshell Texts Show Strzok-Page Calling for ‘MEDIA LEAKS’

Dear Reader,

There it was, blazoned across Vanity Fair: “Trump Believes There’s a Coup.”

Citing inside White House sources, Vanity Fair reports that Trump fully realizes that the Deep State wants to remove him from office.

And holy smokes.

Have you seen them — the latest stream of texts from FBI official Peter Strzok released to the public?

Now you’re really going wonder what the Deep State is planning next!

Remember Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and their smoking-gun anti-Trump text messages?

The first major book to reveal these as the “smoking gun” proving a plot to get Trump was Jerome Corsi’s Killing the Deep State.

This is the MUST-READ political tell-all of the year.

If you don’t have it, you need to claim your FREE COPY of Dr. Corsi’s New York Times bestseller, Killing the Deep State, here.

And it’s the reason we’re convinced Bob Woodward released his big book of lies about Trump.

The Deep State HAD to do something to try and divert attention from the fact Corsi’s allegations have been gaining acceptance!

And then there’s the looming election. In Killing the Deep State, Corsi explained why the media and establishment attacks this year would be so vicious.

The plan was to get control of Congress, create a hostile Congress, one ready to pull the trigger on impeachment.

Now, get a load of this…

A new batch of text messages just released show these Deep State operatives concocted a “media leak” strategy.

Just as Corsi predicted!

Just look at this text from FBI agent and Deep State operative Peter Strzok to FBI colleague and partner in crime (and in bed) Lisa Page on April 10, 2017:

“I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.”

Their attorneys are denying it, claiming it’s an effort to stop leaks.

HA! If you believe that we have a bridge in Brooklyn we want to sell you.

It only gets better. Listen to this…

On April 11 — the day after that text — The Washington Post published a story on Trump adviser Carter Page being under surveillance as a result of the FBI and DOJ convincing a judge to allow it.

He was supposedly placed under FISA surveillance because there was cause to believe he was acting as an agent of Russia.

And the collusion continued…

On April 22 another Strzok text message to Page read: “article is out! Well done, Page.” Now do you really think they’re trying to stop leaks? What a load of FBI lies.

Trump’s got their number.

Earlier this week he tweeted about the media leak strategy, calling out the DOJ and FBI for doing absolutely NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Trump is no dummy.

He’s been on the tail of the Deep State, knowing they’re out for him.

He’s read Corsi’s book, that’s clear. He knows their game plan now.

If you do just one thing today, get your copy of the explosive new Killing the Deep State. It’s easy to get your FREE COPY — click here.

This runaway bestseller from Dr. Jerome Corsi goes deep into the underbelly of our nation’s capital, exposing America’s shadow government and their mission to destroy Trump.

Be prepared, though, because it’s a shocking yet eye-opening read.

When you read your FREE copy of Killing the Deep State you’ll understand why the FBI and DOJ are doing nothing — they’re all part of the Deep State right up to the highest in command. You’ll find proof of the leak strategies right here on these pages:

Page 4

Page 7

Page 34

Page 75

Look, if you want to know just how bad it is, this also just happened…

On Monday, in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, top Republican Mark Meadows, R-N.C., wrote that:

New documents provided to Congress raise “grave concerns” about an “apparent systemic culture of media leaking” among high-level FBI and Justice Department officials to release information damaging to President Trump.

Don’t expect Rosenstein to do anything — he’s a key player. It’s right there on page 63 of Killing the Deep State.

Look, friends, this isn’t a random hate group…

IT’S AN ALL-OUT PLOT TO REMOVE TRUMP!!!

It’s all right here.

Your FREE COPY is waiting — claim it here right now. These books have been flying out the door here. We’re on yet another reprint. If you don’t get your FREE COPY today, it could take weeks, maybe even months, to get it.

Your Friends at Newsmax

P.S. WAIT! Dr. Corsi’s Killing the Deep State reveals this is war. Claim your FREE COPY today compliments of your friends here at Newsmax — hurry, get it before it’s too late!

Facebook Twitter Google YouTube Forward to a Friend
This email is never sent unsolicited. You have received this Newsmax email because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.

TO ADVERTISE

FOX NEWS 6:37 P.M.
Trump Ordered the Release of Sensitive Intelligence at Sean Hannity’s Request
By Eric Levitz@EricLevitz

The worst and the dullest. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
On Monday, Donald Trump ordered the Justice Department to declassify highly sensitive materials related to an ongoing investigation into his own campaign and administration. Specifically, the president demanded the release of a variety of classified documents related to the FISA warrant application that the FBI submitted to monitor Carter Page; all FBI reports of interviews with senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr (who communicated with former British spy and “dodgy dossier” author, Christopher Steele); and every text message that James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr ever sent about the Russia investigation. The president stipulated that said text messages were to be made public “without redaction,” ostensibly ordering the Justice Department to disclose sensitive intelligence sources and methods if that is what full transparency requires.

This was an audacious exercise of Executive authority, even by Trump’s formidable standards. Not only was the president interfering in an active investigation (in which he has a blatant conflict of interest), he was also potentially jeopardizing the security of American intelligence assets, and/or the comfort that foreign intelligence agencies have in sharing their secrets with the United States. A wide array of intelligence experts and officials voiced their opposition to the move. The Justice Department — which did not receive advance instructions detailing exactly what it was expected to release — immediately signaled its intention to slow-walk the request.

All of which prompted the question: What explosive revelations had Trump discovered in these documents? After all, the president doesn’t need to declassify intelligence in order to access it. So he must have already found something that the public needed to know so desperately, concerns about obstruction of justice and national security were mere afterthoughts. It’s not like Donald Trump would release classified materials without first looking into whether the underlying information was important to enough to offset the intelligence community’s concerns — would he?

In an interview with the Hill Tuesday, the president clarified that he would, indeed:

Buck Sexton: Have you reviewed the memos yourself? What do you expect them to show, if so?

President Trump: I have not reviewed them. I have been asked by many people in Congress as you know to release them. I have watched commentators that I respect begging the president of the United States to release them….I have been asked by so many people that I respect, please — the great Lou Dobbs, the great Sean Hannity, the wonderful great Jeanie Pirro.

When fascism comes to America, it will be because a Fox News segment producer took Judge Jeanine’s “Opening Statement” a tad too far.

TAGS: PRESIDENT TRUMP FOX NEWS FISA FBI JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RUSSIA INVESTIGATION
Promoted links by Taboola

THE LATEST
2:10 A.M.
Republicans Regain Confidence in Fight to Confirm Kavanaugh
YESTERDAY AT 8:03 P.M.
Senator Claire McCaskill Says She Will Not Vote to Confirm Brett Kavanaugh
YESTERDAY AT 6:37 P.M.
Trump Ordered the Release of Sensitive Intelligence at Sean Hannity’s Request
YESTERDAY AT 6:31 P.M.
Mike Pompeo Has Launched a War on Misplaced Commas
YESTERDAY AT 4:55 P.M.
Why Mississippi Could Determine Who Controls the Senate and the Supreme Court
YESTERDAY AT 4:41 P.M.
Is the Anti-Abortion Movement Just Applied Anti-Feminism?
YESTERDAY AT 4:13 P.M.
Spanish Official: Trump Suggested Building a Wall Across the Sahara
YESTERDAY AT 3:49 P.M.
This Football Play Didn’t Just Trick the Other Team, It Gamed the Rule Book
YESTERDAY AT 2:33 P.M.
Why Our History Is More Urgent Than Ever
YESTERDAY AT 1:42 P.M.
Frank Rich: A Moment of Truth for Brett Kavanaugh?
YESTERDAY AT 1:04 P.M.
Report: Putin Is Stoking Trump’s ‘Deep State’ Fever Dream
YESTERDAY AT 9:53 A.M.
Kim Will ‘Permanently Dismantle’ Nuclear Test Site, If the U.S. Acts First
PROFILE YESTERDAY AT 8:00 A.M.
Cory Booker Wants to Give You a Hug, and Be Your Next President He’s ready to run the most optimistic, earnest, emotionally present campaign in history — and is betting that’s what Trump’s America is ready for.
By Jonathan Van Meter
YESTERDAY AT 3:06 A.M.
GOP Rejects Kavanaugh Accuser’s Call for FBI Probe After Saying They Want Facts

The biggest signs of rot: being able to diffuse by first confusing. The bases are loaded, by total compression of public sentiment, of the two, the causes are many, primarily by the conflation of the hidden truth, that make America great again is the result of playing into the expectation of the public to magically revert the hopes of national primacy with the reality that getting out of the impossibility of world control in Democratic means. While, pseudo democratically, the oligarchs unite to sustained ideology, particularly the idea of a Democratic capitalism . its so obvious, that this pr is the anthisesis of the evil intentions of the horrible media.

Biding time spinning tales of the most absurd into finely woven , fabric.

Laura Ingraham calls for the firing of the director of the Justice Department, on charges that he wired phones to monitor President Trump, to begin a torteous process of removing him from office via a so called Chapter 25 law, which would terminate his presidency, up on just findings of incapacity and or mental challenges.

Several books habe been written by various psychiatrists, proving appropriate symptomologies of various kinds. But so far such challenges have been re classified as traits of manageable genius.

Yes like France is hospitalizing Le Pen for showing isil torture victims to the public. Any body who wants to stop torture the left will label insane and remove. That’s what a lefty is, a gremlin. God put them with us on the earth to challenge our heart. Anyone who loves anyone or any animal must now face the lefties in his environment and teach them about love. We risk our lives daily to end the cycle of horror and show some lefties that hate isn’t the only way. But it hurts man to see so much hate and so much will to torture. Clinton is even on tv again. Saying it is inhumane to prevent decapitations if it is a man who prevents it and colbert laughs in glee, I’m so happy I’m not afflicted like that man Jesus Christmas.

Not a soul remembers that is is was gonna own the middle east and Obama had already conceded that decenniums would pass before anyone could do something. But Trump flushed them in six months with Russia. But instead of cheering and weeping joy of relief as it was in my house where we know what torture is the left calls him evil. It has made us all so so sick to know we live in a culture that prefers torture to be continued by a woman over torture getting ended by a man. It shows what is in store.

Good one, but the whole nine yards has been reduced to the very basic element , because, of the progressive nature of less and less public appreciation of substantial rhetoric.

That is, gravity brings in the need to overcome that doubt, by more and more groundless demonstration, if we are on the same page.

This less appreciation is a classic Marxian prediction, and it hangs in the air on a very thin thread.

I think You and I should come to terms what appears to be not a more neutral ground, because , this forum should have shown by now, that it is as impartial effort to be fair.

The underpinnings are left hanging, otherwise we will only get caught up in another collusion.

Me Im so simple, I work with torture victims a lot and I seen the families of decapitated boys and circumsized girls. I had nightmares of torture ever since I grew on the Iraq Iran war but probably before because of my family. I cried in sublime happiness when the Donald won because I knew he would end it and he did.

I dont care about intellectualizing torture. I am too shaped by torture victims.

For you it seems a complicated thing. For me it is good against evil pure and simple. Everybody who gives Clinton or Waters power is sending innocents to their open graves.

Really, I don’t have fun with this. I am only continuously perplexed that so many people who seem okay are perfectly willing to vote for torturers. It makes me think a big, big war is coming. The way we are now, a society that thinks it is incorrect to stop torture if it means a woman criminal can’t torture some more, this has to die.

Sometimes I think philosophy is a disease, if it allows people to talk about torture as it is abstract.

I promise man Im not in this topic for fun. If I would tell you what I know you might never sleep again. I know it cost me years of sleep and often forced me to almost bang myself unconscious to the wall. Just a sensitive kid who could never get with the dudes that were burning a doves eyes out. Like I can not get why a warm blooded mammal can be unhappy at what Trump did. I don’t want to know. I just want to celebrate the end of the torture and fight so that it won’t come back. Please join us man, drop the intellectual act and stand up for whats right. How often does it happen, that we can fight against cruelty with politics? First time in my life for damn sure.

The abstract word , the pen, causes literally monumental effects, where by little is written of.those effects, by those who would like to erase the words that caused them, if they became exposed as having caused them.

Little is said about heroes who went unnoticed because they shed.their blood for intentionally ideas which falsely promoted them.

DUDE
I was in the region I risked my life many many MANY times to get to the truth.

then I came to it, and what do you think? People went around to each others houses to tell each other to stop talking to me.

Why do you not want to talk about the torture that stopped?
Is it shame?

If it is fear of a too vivid image of the unlucky’s reality I accept that. But don’t argue from that fear.

And why do You presume I’m not familiar not only with images of.torture but of not.having seen and experienced.them?

I ask politely that you imagine how it is for someone like me, who works in dangerous areas and has no securities from society, when finally something good happens, and the whole so called civilized world comes off its ass to stop it.

Like, no one ever stood up against evil, against the great slaughters in my time. Until a USA president was elected who stands up against it, and now suddenly everyone stands up, to fight him!

The first time in my life they stand up they stand up to keep the torture going.

Please can you understand?

I didn’t use to but when you started attacking and undermining the only man who ever did anything against it, I began to wonder.