Re: F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia
I would invoke Occam's razor here. You attribute much more Machiavellianism to Trump than I do.
I think developmentally he's just a big two-year-old. Now. Mine. No. Waaahhhh. For me, those basic responses explain most of his behavior. Including why he responds most favorably to dictators who can butter him up to his heart's content without having to worry about laws and democratic obligations that leaders such as Macron and Trudeau need to worry about.
The one thing in your list which perked my ears up was, "Look at Trump's insistence that his finances are off limits." Yeah, he might be hiding something there. And there could be some Russian connection he doesn't want revealed. Or it could be how little tax he has paid. Or what kinds of frivolous write-offs he has made. Or how much he has paid himself. Or some kind of criminal behavior he has done in America. Lots of reasons for a shady, careless, impulsive person like Trump to not want his dirty financial laundry hung out to dry where his Bible Belt, belt-tightening base will see what's in it.
Let me be clear: to the extent what's afoot is indeed the stuff of spies, operatives, agents, feints, etc., it's very hard to know what is so and what's come to light as part of some sort of misinformation undertaking. One thing's certain, the whole world of intelligence/counterintelligence is about lies, deceits and half-truths.
Red:
The notion that Trump would be handled literally like a child -- instructed at a detailed level and in a "step one, step two, step three" way is beyond reason. Thus my simple razor is that Trump has been Putin's puppet, or more accurately, a Putin's executive officer or factotum. As the latter, I find it plausible that Trump has been given outcomes he's expected to achieve, but he has broad discretion about how he effects their fruition. That is essentially the way things work between, say, a CEO and his/her top lieutenants in a firm. It's also, generally, how a POTUS directs the actions of his various agency heads and departmental secretaries.
Trump, if he's an asset of Putin's, would have been given very high level goals, goals only a POTUS with entrenched political support a bully pulpit and the world's largest "megaphone" can achieve:
- Foment social discord.
- Present Russia and Putin in favorable lights; don't cast Russia as an adversary.
- Get out of Syria.
- Denigrate pillars of democracy.
- Use your presidential authority and political popularity to foment distrust of, stifle and discredit the USIC.
- Do not lose the support of your political base; use that support to suppress opposition from within your party.
- Oppose and incite animus toward the US among its allies.
- Occasionally, he may have been given specific instructions: insist on meeting completely alone with Putin; get Putin re-invited to the G8.
Do I think Trump may have conjured the strategy for which the above examples are high level tactics? Do I think Trump has any idea of how those tactics abet the realization of a larger strategy? Hell, no! On both counts.
As such, the "Prince-like" quality you see in my remarks derives not from Trump's conjuration. Moreover, it looks Machiavellian because one predicates Trump's comportment and rhetoric being wholly of his own volition. The instant one disabuses oneself of the assumption that Trump's actions are independently conceived, Trump doesn't look so contrived.
I know the postulate of Trump being Putin's "boy" makes a whole lot of things, most especially the more astounding things Trump's said/done, comprehensible, particularly given Trump's outsized ego.
- Might the Russians have had "dirt" on Trump well before he commenced his campaign? Sure. Trump's not ever been an "alter boy" of sorts.
- Might the "dirt" been of no great value until Trump opted to run for POTUS? Absolutely.
- Having such "dirt," notwithstanding Hillary's strained relationship with Putin, that Russia would back Trump was a no-brainer for them.
- Could it be that Trump's outlandish assertions, initiatives and claims were proffered by him in recognition of his being compromised and his thinking that if he was ridiculous enough, nobody would actually buy into them and elect him? Given the reporting that Trump never expected to win the election, it's possible.
Blue:
That he does come off that way is why I don't at all see him as the architect, the chess master behind the imprudent and ill-considered stuff he's been saying and doing.
