BC POLITICS
Saved by @SteveeRogerr

As I have pointed out in a previous posting, many of the rioters found to their dismay and bewilderment that there was no plan, at least that they could discern, for the mob to carry out that day. 1/63

 The only thing they knew is that there had been a call to action--and to a large extent to arms as well--to disrupt the certification of Biden’s electoral college win. 2/63
According to Ali Alexander (formerly known as Ali Akbar) the idea was to show up so angry and in such overwhelming numbers that it would “change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.” 3/63
(In fact, there is mounting evidence that Ali and other organizers of the event intended for the rioters to get INSIDE the fenced-in perimeter and even the building itself, which would in themselves have been unlawful actions--but that is a subject for another thread.) 4/63
Ali’s description might well fit the motives of many in the mob that assembled on January 6. But the more interesting and important question is: What did Trump and the activists and event organizers expect (or a least hope) that the *members of Congress* would do that day? 5/63
There was something that Congress could have done for them, consistent with the controlling law on the matter (the Electoral Count Act of 1887), which was to have the Senate refuse to certify the election of Joe Biden, 6/63
by challenging enough votes in the electoral college to deny Biden the 270 votes he needed to win the election. If that happened, the House would then decide the election by voting either Biden or Trump into office. 7/63
While this idea got some coverage in the media, it never got much support in Congress, even among Republicans who supported Trump.

For one thing, it clearly didn’t have the votes to succeed, in either the Senate or (subsequently if it came to that) in the House. 8/63
Furthermore, as McConnell said in his speech before the Senate, if successful, the move would set a terrible precedent for the GOP. As McConnell pointed out in that speech, in the future any party with a majority in the Senate and House 9/63
(think Democrats here, as McConnell surely was) could use Congress to usurp state authority and nullify the leverage small states have in the Electoral College, where the electors from Wyoming (pop. 579K) carry the same weight as those from California (pop. 40 million). 10/63
Establishment Republicans were also appalled at the idea of giving Congress, a national body, the power to decide the presidential election: perhaps the ultimate violation of the principles of federalism. 11/63
There was another, insanely criminal plan to keep Trump in office that was afoot that day on the part of at least some of the rioters: kidnap or assassinate Pence, who was authorized by the Electoral Count Act to count the ballots and announce the winner of the election. 12/63
It is an important question whether and to what extent Trump, Giuliani, WH aides, and some members of Congress with white nationalist affiliations and sympathies knew of this plan and either facilitated it or failed to blow the whistle on it. 13/63
There was another proposal in play that day that we know was supported by some congressional Republicans. What it proposed for the Senate do would have been unlawful, since the congressional action it proposed 14/63
lay well outside the controlling Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Beyond that, however, it was not (at least on its face) criminal or seditious. 15/63
Here’s the crucial part of the statement (the excerpt omits the high-sounding rhetoric that was used to justify the proposal): 16/63 https://t.co/c7XLpLlxcD
Let us note, first of all, that the reference to Congress’s action in 1877 is not apposite. (Are you surprised? Republicans are masters of the false equivalence.) 17/63
In the election of 1876, some states had returned more than one slate of electors, and this had forced Congress itself to act and decide the election, but there was nothing comparable before Congress on January 6. 18/63
In 2020, every state had sent only one set of electors, and none of the challenges by Republicans to the elections that were under dispute (because they tipped the election to Biden) had been upheld by the courts. 19/63
In short, there was no question that Biden was the duly and legitimately President-elect of the United States, as every sane observer (including all reputable legal scholars) said, repeatedly. 20/63
Even the eleven Senators admitted there was virtually no chance that they would have the votes to hand the election to Trump on January 6. 21/63
Nevertheless, Cruz and the others claimed that they were trying to defuse a “volatile” situation by proposing that Congress should pass a 10-day extension. Cruz said: 22/63 https://t.co/igmmtwn4xo
But the critics were absolutely right: Cruz’s proposal *was* highly dangerous and in fact treasonous. Why? Because, had it been adopted, the proposal would have led inexorably, and quite quickly, to a constitutional crisis. 23/63
One of the problems was a matter of timing. Cruz and the others must have been aware of this: that is probably why they proposed that the Senate reject the contested EC ballot *before* voting the “fact-finding” commission into existence. 24/63
As a tactical matter, this made perfectly good sense, because proposing that the Senate vote on the fact-finding matter *before* rejecting the election results that Trump had challenged would have exposed the proposal for the dangerous ruse that it was. 25/63
The problem is that there is no way that such a fact-finding mission could be established and have completed the given task within ten days. 26/63
Our whole national experience with such commissions (think of the commission investigating the Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 commission) shows that voting on the membership of such commissions is itself highly controversial and time-consuming. 27/63
The commission would also have faced legal challenges, delaying matters even further.

For example, Giuliani and Sidney Powell, the duo that apparently came up with the idea of the extension, suggested that the Dominion voting machines should be seized. 28/63
But would the Commission have had the legal right to seize those machines in the event that they weren’t turned over voluntarily by the respective states? 29/63
A moment’s reflection shows that it was absurd for Cruz and his colleagues to suggest, as the their statement implied, that there would be time enough in ten days (1) for the Commission to be established; (2) for the Commission to complete its audit; 30/63
and (3) for the individual states to “evaluate the Commission’s findings and convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.” (!!). (Step 3 alone would have taken a *lot* of time, even assuming it could be completed at all.) 31/63
Bottom line: what Cruz and the other eleven Senators contemplated couldn’t possibly have been completed in 10 days (not even the beginning of it could have been). It would have taken way more than FOURTEEN days to be completed, 32/63
and that would have been the mischief. It meant that the delay would have created a constitutional crisis, because noon on January 20 is specified in the 20th Amendment to the Constitution itself as the time for the Inauguration, 33/63
and *there is no provision in the Constitution for what happens if that deadline is not met.* 34/63
Thus, the proposal would inevitably have created what a Marxist would call “revolutionary conditions,”

because it would inevitably have left Trump in the White House, with no constitutional means of resolving the matter. (See my earlier posting): 35/63 https://t.co/ux9DAnvr9r
Predictably, though, Trump’s “freedom patriots” and especially the armed right-wing militias of that movement would have tried to settle the matter in the streets. We know that because we know a lot about what the rioters were thinking that day. 36/63
No one rioting at the Capitol on January 6 could have reasonably believed that what happened there that day could, in itself, have settled the election in their favor--and probably no one that day did, if they thought about the matter at all. 37/63
They clearly believed that it was absolutely necessary to Stop the Steal in Congress by disrupting or blocking Congress’s certification of the election, 38/63
but that was only the necessary part. What was the sufficient part? They probably didn’t know, but they must have suspected that they would be called upon as “freedom patriots” to do a lot more even after January 6, no matter what the outcome was that day. 39/63
That is why it is a mistake to call January 6 an attempted coup. That it certainly was, but it was actually much more than that: it was an incitement to insurrection and revolution. 40/63
A coup is a short-term event, usually lasting a day or two at most. If it fails, that is the end of it, and if it is immediately successful, that is also the end of it *as a coup.* 41/63
But there is no way that the Stop the Steal event on January 6 could have been the end of the matter. To the extent that it did prove to be successful, it would have led inevitably to a revolutionary situation. 42/63
We know also from the text messages law enforcement has collected that the most militant of the rioters came fully expecting a revolution. 43/63
As one militant rioter exulted that day: “This is just the beginning.” The armed militants were excited, even overjoyed, that the racial and cultural civil war that they had been dreaming about for years was finally starting to unfold. 44/63
We already know that the FBI and Congress are investigating whether some representatives (Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks are typically mentioned in this connection) were complicit in this insurrection. 45/63
But they also need to look at the Senate, and in particular at Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

There are a number of things that need to be investigated here. 46/63
For one: what must Cruz have been thinking (not just saying) when he proposed his constitutional time bomb?

What made him think that it was feasible to have such a commission established and for it to complete its work in TEN DAYS? 47/63
Also: what was the extent and nature of Cruz’s communications with the organizers of the event, and especially with Trump and Giuliani? 48/63
We already know that Trump had asked Cruz to represent him in an election challenge case before SCOTUS.

When that challenge failed, what did Cruz know about Trump and Giuliani’s plans or expectations for the January 6 event? 49/63
Did he know, or wasn’t he at least in a position to reasonably infer, that significant elements at the rally were militants who came prepared for revolution and wanted it?

It’s hard to believe that he didn’t. 50/63
(That is true, by the way, of all the Republicans in the House and Senate. After all, the rioters who showed up on 1/6 at the Capitol were *their* voters and constituents. They certainly weren’t Democratic Party voters and constituents.) 51/63
No doubt it was in large part because of what he did know that Cruz spoke on January 2 about a “volatile situation” and a “tinderbox.” 52/63
Luke Mogelson has reported in the New Yorker that the rioters who reached the Senate chambers concluded that Cruz was “on their side” simply because he was going to vote to throw out votes from some of the states that had voted for Joe Biden, just as Trump wanted. 53/63
Inside the Senate chamber, Mogelson said: 54/63 https://t.co/j8AQkY3Vhy
But the whole picture is even worse than the one Mobelson describes, because we must take into account Cruz’s statement, which was issued on January 2, four days before the armed attack on the Capitol. 55/63
Could anything have given more encouragement and a greater lift to the aspirations and hopes of the seditious plotters than this statement? After all, buying time and keeping Trump in office until (and beyond) January 20 was what they needed to keep Trump in power. 56/63
How could Cruz have been unaware of this? He obviously thinks he’s smart, and desperately wants everyone else to believe he is smart. 57/63
As one former Trump aide and critic said of him: “He’s supposed to be a smart asshole” (but also that “He’s supposed to at least be a smart, savvy asshole”). 58/63 https://t.co/6HfMicvebs
We need to find out what Giuliani and Trump knew, believed, and intended regarding the Save America event, and specifically the extent to which they might have been willing to lend assistance to, or at least turn a blind eye to, 59/63
an armed insurrection against the United States government, which was itself part of a larger project to overturn an election and destroy American democracy. 60/63
If there was such an insurrectionary plot on the part of at least some of the activists and event organizers, did Cruz and the others simply play into their hands unwittingly? Or did Cruz and others know enough about a conspiracy to make them complicit themselves? 61/63
Cruz’s proposal would surely have sown a whirlwind. Did Cruz think that he could use that whirlwind (a constitutional crisis and the ensuing turmoil) to his advantage in GOP politics? 62/63
If you agree that the FBI and Congress should get answers to these questions (and maybe more I haven’t thought of), please RT this thread to @SenTedCruz, @FBI, @SenatorSchumer, and @tribelaw. Thank you. 63/63
PS/ I see that Tommy Tuberville, freshman senator from Alabama, said on Wednesday morning (shortly before the voting and rioting) that he wanted Biden’s inauguration to be postponed until after January 20 due to the pandemic! https://t.co/VZD43e0pnO
Tuberville was one of the signatories to Cruz’s statement, which advocated a 10 day extension. So: Tuberville was clearly looking for other justifications for leaving Trump ensconced in the WH. That seems to have been the main thing. What about Cruz?

More from Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood \U0001f30a
Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac
The evidence is mounting that what we witnessed yesterday was an attempted coup (related terms are “insurrection” and “sedition”). 1/10

But it is important to note that the bad actors involved in the events can be sent to jail (for up to twenty years) for something that falls short of an attempted coup and is easier to prove in court: obstruction of justice. 2/10

The relevant federal statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1512--a statute, you might recall, that figures prominently in the Mueller Report. 3/10

Bill Barr, who wanted to construe the statute narrowly, contested Mueller’s interpretation of the statute. There is a lengthy reply to Barr’s construction (which I think might have been written by Michael Dreeben) in the Report. 4/10

The Report establishes conclusively that Barr’s interpretation violates every known principle of statutory construction, and it is fun to read the Report and see Barr get *destroyed* on this point. 5/10
FOR LATER READ
Thomas Wood \U0001f30a
Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac
Biden saying that Rs “beat the living hell out of us” in downballot races across the country is significant, because (1) he said it to an audience that didn’t really want to hear it and https://t.co/FM7OwUgWYH 1/8

(2) because he wouldn’t have said it unless it was based on conclusive internal polling. 2/8

It is also encouraging if it *is* the correct analysis of Ds’ disappointing-- even calamitous--electoral outcomes in downballot races.

It is encouraging because it is easily remediable with better messaging. 3/8

In fact, Biden made it clear during the election that he did not favor actually defunding the police: that he only favored reforming the police, and specified policies to do that. But he didn’t say it loud enough, and downballot D politicians didn’t either. 4/8

(The R messaging over “defunding the police” seems to have worked to protect R politicians in downballot races, but wasn’t enough to get Trump himself reelected over the repugnance Ds and Independents felt for him.) 5/8
BIDEN
Advertisement
Thomas Wood \U0001f30a
Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac
It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose the TX case, but why did he say “This is the big one?” 1/9


Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9

and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9

This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9

In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9
TRUMP
Thomas Wood \U0001f30a
Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac
There were at least two insurrectionist plans that day.

As I’ve written previously, one of the plans was simply to either take Pence hostage or to assassinate him. 1/28

That was the more extreme plot, and it is an interesting question whether and to what extent Trump, Giuliani, some WH aides, and some nationalist insurrection members of Congress knew of the plan and either facilitated it or condoned it. 2/28

But there was another plan, less violent and extreme, but equally seditious, which we know was supported by a number of extremist members of Congress. It was also the plan that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani publicly espoused. 3/28

That plan was simply to ensure somehow, by force or by intimidation, that the certification of the election by Congress failed or fell short on January 6--the constitutionally mandated date for the final and determinative certification of the election. 4/28

The principal target here was VP MIke Pence. Pence had already announced publicly that he would not throw the election in the way that Trump had demanded because he lacked the statutory and constitutional authority to do so (which was, of course, perfectly true). 5/28
GOVERNMENT
Thomas Wood \U0001f30a
Thomas Wood 🌊
@twoodiac
The most important remaining nomination for Biden to announce is the most important one he will ever make: for Attorney General of the United States. 1/8

If Biden nominates Sally Yates, it will be a pretty clear signal that the D voices who believe that Trump and his enablers must be held accountable for a uniquely lawless presidency have carried the day. 2/8

Since I’m hoping Biden will nominate Yates, it is encouraging that Biden has waited so long to announce his selection for AG. (It is going to come now after the Electoral College formalizes Biden’s election on Monday.) 3/8

(Trump’s outrageous attempt to overturn the 2020 election--“overturn” being a term Trump actually used in a tweet--has probably made it more likely that Biden will take a hard line on all this. He certainly should.) 4/8

If Yates is nominated, the writing will be clearly on the wall for Trump, who in its wake would probably make a deal with Pence involving his resignation some time before inauguration day and a pardon for all his federal crimes. 5/8
BIDEN

More from Politics

Brian Cates
Brian Cates
@drawandstrike
So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?


I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.

He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉

I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.

Not before.

No matter how much whining is done about it.

I'm exhausted but it's worth it.

Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.

Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
POLITICS
Hugo Gye
Hugo Gye
@HugoGye
Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted the Tory leadership coup looks like being delayed to December - after the 'meaningful vote' on the PM's Brexit deal.

Speaking on his @ConHome 'Moggcast': "Some people don't want a leadership vote now, they would like it when the meaningful vote comes up and think that is the time to put in letters."

JRM: "I think the strength of feeling against the meaningful vote is much stronger than the number of letters that has gone in. If there are letters in, very few of those letters will be withdrawn - so the hurdle is much lower when the meaningful vote comes."

He tells @ConHome the apparent failure of the coup could be a blessing in disguise: "In a way it is better that there has been this delay, though I can't pretend that there has been some cunning plan, because we have allowed time for people to see the failures of the policy."

Full report on the delayed coup from @NatashaC on @TheSun now:
POLITICS
Advertisement
George Pittman
George Pittman
@pittman_george
🚨 Thread: It’s Happening!

1. This may be the most important thread I’ve put together, yet. This is truly an exciting time for America. We are about to witness history in the making. It will, in fact, be Biblical. Not just for Us, but for the world.
POLITICS
Parker Molloy
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
I told you they’d bring this up


I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see


Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.


There are 3 important moments in that transcript.

1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.


2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “

Okay!

Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
POLITICS
Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Rep. Pramila Jayapal
@RepJayapal
We promised people that if we won the Senate, we would send out $2,000 survival checks. They delivered us to victory—and now we MUST deliver.

“Targeting” checks to a smaller group fails to do that. People need help like never before, and we must put money in their pockets.

“Targeting” checks isn’t just bad for people, it’s bad policy too! It’s not humane, it's not smart, it’s not effective, and it’s not even fiscally responsible. Not to mention that it doesn't meet the scale of this crisis.

Help me spread the word about 4 obvious reasons why:

1⃣The survival checks often use 2019 tax data to measure someone’s income.

Millions lost their jobs in 2020 due to COVID—that’s the whole point of this relief!—and therefore their income from 1 or 2 years ago is no longer accurate. They need help now and we must provide it.

Even if someone isn’t one of the nearly 1 million additional people losing their job EVERY single week, they likely lost hours and therefore had their overall income significantly reduced.

By “targeting,” we cut out people who are desperately in need of help.

2⃣The data from people who filed for unemployment shows that more than 20% of those earning between $50k and $70k were still food insecure.

That's up 16% from 2019—and it's why food banks have such long lines. We need to put money in their pockets so they can feed their family.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Mike DiCenzo
Mike DiCenzo
@mikedicenzo
"How the Avengers would respond to the Capitol riot" (a thread)

CAPTAIN AMERICA - tells Falcon, "I fought Nazis once before. They're extremely dangerous." They then see the guy scaling the Capitol wall fall into the shrubs. Falcon: "You sure these are the same Nazis?"

IRON MAN - lands by the guy carrying the podium. Says, "Mind if I borrow this?" then tosses it to Hulk, who swings it like a bat at the mob. Guy: "Hey, that's MY podium!" Iron Man: "Actually it's the Speaker's. And technically, it's a lectern." Then punches him through a wall.

BLACK WIDOW - enters hotel room where Jack Dorsey is tied up. Rips duct tape off his mouth. Jack: "I'll do anything you want!" BW: "Disable POTUS's Twitter. NOW!" Jack fumbles with his phone. "Done. Anything else?" BW: "Yeah. Trim your beard for God's sake." *tosses him clippers*

HULK - grabs a selfie stick from one of the guys and beats him over the head with it. Deeming it too small, he grabs another guy's Confederate flag and takes out a whole swath of rioters. He then tosses the flag to Cap, who uses it as a javelin to impale a fleeing Ted Cruz.

HAWKEYE - hears Iron Man in his earpiece say, "Looks like Orange Julius is tweeting from another account." Hawkeye: "On it." He locks in on Trump through the White House window and fires an arrow, knocking the phone out of Trump's hands. Hawkeye: "Damn that felt good."
GOVERNMENT
Shalini Singh Sengar
Shalini Singh Sengar
@Maverickmusafir
Post Independence, Army wanted to select the most experienced Indian commander as Army chief. But Nehru without consulting anyone appointed Gen Rob Lockhart, a senior British Army officer as the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of the Indian Army.


Most people were shocked to know that Nehru selected a British Man after fighting for independence for over 200 years! Major Gen A A ‘Jick’ Rudra of the Indian Army was completely upset with the decision.


One day Lockhart met Nehru with a strategic plan and proposed many government directive defence policies for the country. He placed it on the table and explained the point to PM Nehru. After a while Lockhart walked out of the room and met AA Jick Rudra,+

Lockhart looked shell shocked and stunned. When asked what happened he said “The PM took one look at my paper and blew his top. Rubbish! Total rubbish! We don’t need a defence plan. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army!”

One year after the incident the Kashmir crisis had increased and Gen Lockhart used to exchange ideas with the Gen Douglas Gracey who was commander in chief of Pakistan Army.There were many infiltrations along the border which Lockhart knew and took no action. But Lt Gen Cariappa+
HISTORY
Advertisement
Sheetal Rijhwani
Sheetal Rijhwani
@RijhwaniSheetal
How you can filter stocks for Intraday trades - 🧵

As a kid, we would do homework before school the next day - you have to do homework here too. A specific sector performs on a particular day and studying things a day before will help you spot that particular sector. (1/11)

To prepare for the next trading day, you got to check the Index charts of all sectors. You got to keep an eye on a specific Index if you see a few factors:

- If any Index closed exactly at the resistance, you can get a trade on either side on the next day. (2/11)

- If it gave a rejection candle at resistance.

- If any Index closed exactly at support, you can get a trade on either side the following day.

- If there was a bullish signal at the support.

- If any Index gave a breakout or breakdown and then gave a good closing. (3/11)

- If any Index has taken support at 50 or 200 EMA.

Once you spot the Index, look at all the stocks in that particular Index. Pick at least 3-4 stocks from that Index and add them to your watchlist for the next day. It's ideal to check both higher and lower timeframes. (4/11)

What you should do next day? (When I am unable to check Indices and stocks a day before, I sometimes directly start with this process.)

- Start with checking the top gainers/losers list. I observe market from 9:15 to 9:45am to check the sectors performing well on that day.(5/11)
SCREENERS , ALL , INTRADAY STRATEGIES
Anu Satheesh
Anu Satheesh
@AnuSatheesh5
Puthucode Annapoorneshwari Temple,
Palakkad, Kerala 🚩
#keralatemples
अन्नपूर्णे सदापूर्णे शङ्करप्राणवल्लभे 
ज्ञानवैराग्यसिद्ध्यर्थं भिक्षां देहि च पार्वति 

Temple is also called Puthukode Bhaghavathy Kshetram
Parasurama did Prathishta of Devi here. Temple is one amoung 👇


108 Durga temples
Navarathri festival is celebrated in a grant manner here. Annadanam is done daily on these days. The Idichu pizhinja payasam/ Chathachatayam is the main nivedyam in Annapoorneswari temple during Navarathri.
In the mornings, Devi Mahatmyam and Sundarakandam are


recited here daily.
Sri Godavarma Raja gifted lots of rice fields for the maintenance of the temple.
Annapoorneshwari holds Shanku and Chakra in her hands. Puthucode Annapoorneswari Temple is managed by the Naduvil Madom Devaswom.
🙏🕉🙏
ALL
David Rothkopf
David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf
Trump on climate: I don't believe it. Trump on Khashoggi: I don't believe it. Trump on Russia: I don't believe it. Idiocy? A canny game? Doesn't really matter as much as the underlying intellectual autocracy. In this administration only one opinion matters.

It's an assault on facts and reason. It's an assault on good governance. It's an assault on the bureaucracies that are being discounted. It's an assault on science and history. But it is also an assault on one of the underpinnings of democracy.

We live in a system that is grounded on the idea of collaborative government. Leaders may have a final word but even then, there are typically checks and balances. Hopefully, in this case, such checks and balances may work. But they also are being tested.

The president's position that he is smarter than all the world's scientists, than the entire intelligence community, than experts who have studied any issue all their lives, is, of course, asinine. But his belief that government turns solely on his opinion, is monarchic.

Louis XIV reportedly said, "L'etat est moi." That he was the state. Trump asserting that he knows better than all, discounts all advice, that his brain is enough to chart the course for America alone, is essentially saying the same thing.
POLITICS