The Other Way Trump Could Destroy the Next Presidency - The Atlantic
Category: News & Politics
Via: sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom • 4 years ago • 174 commentsBy: Rebecca Friedman Lissner (The Atlantic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Short of an outright constitutional crisis, a lot could still go horribly wrong.
A brazen refusal by the president to leave office is surely a nightmare scenario. But even if President Donald Trump were to lose and accept the results on November 3 or soon thereafter, he could nevertheless wreak significant damage during the period between the election and the inauguration of Joe Biden—endangering the incoming administration, at best, and actively sabotaging it, at worst.
Presidential transitions are perilous even in normal times. With each inauguration of a new president every four to eight years, the executive branch undergoes a massive overhaul; more than 4,000 new political appointees flood into federal departments and agencies, including 1,200 senior officials who require Senate confirmation. The minute a new president is sworn in, his administration assumes responsibility for everything from nuclear launch codes to pandemic response, economic policy, and counterterrorism—at the very moment when the government's capacity is most diminished. At the Defense Department alone, the nation's largest employer and perhaps the world's most complex organization, the top 59 senior civilian leaders, from the secretary of defense on down, are political appointees requiring Senate confirmation. A private-sector company would be crazy to emulate this approach, yet the security, the health, and the prosperity of Americans depend on its success.
Facilitating the smoothest possible transition—if one should happen in January 2021—is of paramount national importance, particularly at a time of ongoing upheaval at home and abroad. If elected, Joe Biden would face the extraordinary challenge of seizing the reins of government amid the triple crises of a global pandemic, an economic collapse, and a national reckoning over racial justice, and his effectiveness in managing these would redound to the entire nation's benefit. Yet there is ample reason to worry that the outgoing Trump administration will disregard the laws and the norms that are supposed to govern the transition period. Without question, a stolen election or a refusal to accept electoral results is the nightmare scenario. But well short of a constitutional crisis, the Trump administration can nevertheless hobble the incoming Biden team and endanger the nation with a scuttled transition process.
Presidential transitions are both remarkable and risky. Unlike nations with parliamentary systems and wholly professionalized bureaucracies, the U.S. federal government undergoes extensive turnover whenever a new president comes into office with thousands of political appointees in tow. This turnover is important, as it injects fresh blood and ideas into a too-often-sclerotic system and ensures that the daily work of the executive branch aligns with the president's—and, by extension, the electorate's—will. That the U.S. has experienced 44 peaceful transitions of power, even as the anti-majoritarian Electoral College has overridden the popular vote in two elections so far this century, is a testament to the strength of the American political system and norms that date back to George Washington.
Yet the process is also fraught with danger. Much can get lost in transition: Departing officials take with them crucial knowledge about ongoing policies, budgets, dialogues, and diplomacy—not to mention institutional knowledge about where to find information and how to get things done. Always complex, assuming control of the government grew into an even more Herculean task with the emergence of a enormous national-security bureaucracy after World War II and its further expansion after 9/11. Perhaps the most famous fiasco during this vulnerable moment is the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which failed in large part because of information lost between the departing Eisenhower administration and the incoming Kennedy administration, but there are many other examples of miscommunications and missteps in the national-security realm, such as when the outgoing Carter team failed to alert Reagan of Israel's impending strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.
If Biden wins in November, he will likely face the most challenging transition in modern times. A Biden administration will confront a singularly taxing agenda, with the threefold crises of the moment layered upon the hefty portfolio any president normally inherits, including securing the nation's nuclear weapons and managing ongoing military operations overseas. In grappling with this daunting docket, Biden will be hampered by a federal bureaucracy damaged by four years of institutional decay and, potentially, a hostile, Republican-held Senate antagonistic toward his new personnel appointments.
Biden may also face an outgoing administration that hinders his efforts, whether because of incompetence or malign intent. Planning, coordination, and information-sharing across government agencies and functions are vital to a successful transition. With an administration that remains dramatically understaffed, senior Trump officials may simply lack the bandwidth to reach into their bureaucracies to collect data on personnel and policy, collate it in neat binders, and brief its contents to successors. If the president is not reelected, and especially if he behaves as a sore loser, some of his appointees may begin shirking their responsibilities as they start searching for new opportunities and lose interest in fighting for a lame-duck agenda.
The risk of information loss is particularly acute for matters of national security—an area where the president's pique toward the intelligence community and the so-called deep state might make him particularly resistant to cooperation. Ths is a concern prior to the election, when major-party candidates usually begin to receive horizon-scanning classified briefings on global events after their nominating conventions—and all the more so if Biden wins, as postelection briefings typically delve into sensitive national secrets such as planned military operations or covert actions, particular threats, and diplomatic secrets. Unlike the formal transition planning process, the content of intelligence briefings to presidential candidates and presidents-elect is discretionary, not legislatively mandated, creating considerable latitude for dangerous omissions.
Imagining more extreme forms of sabotage is also possible. Even as a lame duck, President Trump will remain the commander in chief until Biden takes the oath of office on January 20, 2021. Already, the Trump team is reportedly working to lock in its foreign-policy priorities by killing the Iran nuclear deal, pushing through troop withdrawals from Germany, and levying new rounds of tariffs and tech restrictions; after the election, the president could undertake more dramatic moves, such as announcing an intent to leave NATO or ordering all combat troops to depart Afghanistan. Though improbable, Trump could defy the norm of consultation with the president-elect and lead the nation into conflict with a foreign adversary such as Iran—or decline to act when faced with an imminent domestic or global threat. Even if Biden immediately reversed or denounced such eleventh-hour maneuvers, the policy whiplash would undermine America's already-damaged credibility as an ally and an adversary.
Though the scale of his charge may be singular, Biden would not be the first president to assume office amid global and domestic crises. Franklin D. Roosevelt took office at the height of the Great Depression, launching a sweeping "first 100 days" agenda that would become the gold standard for all subsequent new presidents. After FDR's death, Harry Truman was thrust into the role of commander in chief during the Second World War. Decades later, George H. W. Bush became president in 1989 at a time of tremendous global change, as the Cold War was rapidly and unexpectedly warming. And Biden had a front-row seat as Barack Obama entered the White House in the midst of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, cooperated closely with the outgoing George W. Bush team, and acted quickly to stanch an economic meltdown.
Given the daunting task of transitioning between presidents, planning starts early—usually in late summer, right around the time of both parties' nominating conventions. Although such preparation used to remain quiet for fear of appearing presumptuous prior to electoral victory, a 2010 law brought it into the open, mandating federal support to major-party candidates before and after the November election. This legislation and the updates that followed were crucial steps toward institutionalizing best practices for presidential transitions, but they are only a framework; effectiveness lies in the commitment of a sitting president to rigorous preparation, genuine information-sharing, and an awkward embrace of cooperation alongside political rivalry.
Recognizing the risk to the nation posed by a faulty handover of power, there is a strong nonpartisan norm of sitting presidents providing aid, even to their prospective replacements. This is especially crucial when it comes to matters of national security. When Mitt Romney challenged Obama in 2012, the Obama administration facilitated regular intelligence briefings beginning immediately after the Republican nominating convention, even as partisan controversy over the Benghazi attacks was mounting. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration's team was seized by the importance of managing the first post-9/11 transition and engaged in extensive preparations with the incoming Obama team, setting the modern standard for transition planning. Of course, there have also been hijinks. In 2001, when George W. Bush's team arrived at the White House, they found many of the W keys missing from White House keyboards—one of many goodbye pranks from the outgoing Clinton administration.
Early indications of the Trump administration's compliance with the legal requirements for transition planning are promising; under the leadership of Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the administration met its deadline to establish a White House Transition Coordinating Council, among other mechanisms. Nevertheless, the success of any transition effort depends on the substance of the planning, coordination, and information-sharing itself, which is ultimately a function of the president's priorities.
Presidential transitions are the connective tissue of the American political process. Past presidents and members of Congress have recognized the importance of a smooth transition through legislation and norms established in past handovers. Outgoing President George H. W. Bush underlined this point in his valedictory note to Clinton. Despite having lost to Clinton only months before, Bush wrote: "Your success now is our country's success. I am rooting hard for you." The American people and lawmakers are right to panic at the suggestion that Trump may postpone the election, exploit inconclusive or compromised results, or resist leaving office even if he loses. But, as with much presidential gaslighting, hints of a nightmare scenario should not obscure subtler but nevertheless pernicious steps the departing administration could take to hobble its successor. Leaders of both parties must remain on guard against dangerous obstructionism, if not outright sabotage, recognizing that the American people's safety, security, prosperity, and health are too important to be lost in the transition.
This story is part of the project "The Battle for the Constitution," in partnership with the National Constitution Center.
Rebecca Friedman Lissner is a co-author of the forthcoming book, An Open World: How America Can Win the Contest for Twenty-First Century Order.
Nevertheless, the success of any transition effort depends on the substance of the planning, coordination, and information-sharing itself, which is ultimately a function of the president's priorities.
Trump obviously cares nothing for the rule of law.
Nor human life, other than his own that is.
I hope that if Trump does lose that he pushes through as many regulation changes and reductions as possible in that two month window. Signs as many executive orders as he can, pardons as many as he desires, cuts and and indexes as many taxes as possible, gets as many judges confirmed as possible until every position is legally filled in every district, appeals, Supreme Court, gets as many miles of border wall built as possible, deports as many illegal aliens who commit crimes as possible, all while being cordial and personally cooperative with members of the incoming regime.
I assume that Biden has people tracking the Trump Administration's war on regulations, so as to be in a position to restore sanity as quickly as possible. Let's hope he has a sufficient Congressional majority. The Senate is far from a sure thing.
Wow! Project much Greg?
Rubber gloves but no mask. Hmmm. Seems more concerned about leaving fingerprints than avoiding getting sick.
I was just thinking that shirt would look better on me
Too right! I've seen this guy talk noise in a few CNN sound bites about Qanon. He's all about 'pizzagate'.
The guy with the blue gloves has a Boogaloo Boys shirt on, as does the dude on the right of the photo.
That seems to be all tRump supporters have, deflection, projection, denial. . .
What else do they have???
Blue gloves.
Hands of blue, two by two.
Trump was impeached for his, "ties" to the Ukraine and China? Trump does more business with China than anyone.
Wait a sec, I bought a shirt like that when I was in Hawaii almost half a century ago, and I'm no Boogaloo Boy, whatever that is.
Maybe as full-length loungewear. That guy is enormous.
That's more information on Hawaiian shirts than I thought existed...
Interesting read. At least I bought mine long before the Boogaloo thing started.
Transition teams for both Trump and Biden have been in place since March of this year. Both candidates are required to file transition plans for both scenarios...whether they win or lose. These teams are required to be non-partisan and must understand that protecting the Constitution of the United States is the main goal.
Trump... non-partisan...
I know, but members of the official transition teams are chosen by non-partisan committees.
Actually it's true.
Trump honestly doesn't give a crap between Democrat and Republican, or liberal and conservative. He cares only about himself and who will be his sycophant, political beliefs non-withstanding.
Trump favors whomever is most politically expedient towards meeting his personal needs at any given time. At this time in history there just happen to be more idiots on the right willing to sell their soul to the devil.
There is a mountain of hyperbole here. There is no way the military is going to let an outgoing Trump order the US into something dangerously stupid. The only department that echo's Trump's ego is the INS/Boarder Patrol. They might start rounding up people and deporting/detaining without due process. They've been doing that for 4 years now.
Can you provide proof of that?
[deleted]
[deleted]
He's been doing it for 4 years. Haven't you been following your own preferred candidate?
which photo do you find more disturbing?
The militias that are organized and are publicly performing military maneuvers are more disturbing. One picture shows guys standing around with firearms. The other picture shows an army on the march.
I see you focused in on the black militias and not the white ones
I am focusing on an armed and organized army marching on public streets. That's not a black militia. That's a regiment made up of black soldiers. And they're on the march.
right
Do they make you nervous? Why? Would a group of armed militia made up of white soldiers make you just as nervous?
The less ambiguous term is 'correct'.
Any organized private army performing maneuvers on public streets should make everyone nervous. A private army operates under their own code of military conduct and aren't bound by international military conventions for conduct of war.
I will use the words I want, thankuverymuch
You didn't really answer my question. But that's fine. I didn't really expect you to.
Why would four white guys in street clothes carrying firearms worry you more than a regiment of black soldiers marching on public streets?
Does your concern have something to do with the color of their skins?
You aren't the only one who sees where Nerm is coming from. Everyone does.
Many on NT agree with him.
Wierd guys with guns are no problem! ... as long as they're White...
Yeah...because that black group of soldiers makes guys like you nervous!
Yep ......spot on.
We have Posse Comitatus so the US military can't act against their own people unilaterally but i guess one color or the other is "not as bad" to some when it comes to private militias.
No, it appears your concern does
Horseshit, you two are trying to put words in his mouth.
Nah...we reserve that for you.
I just find it ironic that Nerm only focused in on the black militia (photos) but didn't show any photos of white militia doing the same thing. And don't tell me that there aren't white militia who are doing this very same thing some where in the good ol' US of A.
Surely then you can find a picture of such then right?
Please source your photograph.
Lol .... yeah .... keep telling yourself that.
I didn't make myself clear. [Deleted]
I've got a story with video but I doubt any of these cats will watch it:
Shows a parade of armed white militia marching thru Charlottesville before the rally back in 2017.
That's just sad .... especially since i'm "unfuckwithable" and don't give a shit what people think here but by all means [Deleted]
Did your sense of humor stay in bed this morning?
Not at all .... what "humor" did i miss?
Honestly neither are disturbing to me. 2nd amendment allows for both.
My passive sonar starts pinging whenever i see a weapon in the general public.
Old habits die hard .....
Second Amendment allows a lot of crap.
Same source as the photo of four white guys in street clothes carrying firearms. The internet.
BTW, the two photos I posted are from different regimental marches in different states.
Black armed protesters march in Kentucky demanding justice for Breonna Taylor
.
Local militia challenges White supremacy during Fourth of July march
Here's another that everyone can try to explain away. Just don't use the color of their skin as an excuse; that would be racist.
The Birth of the NFAC; America’s Black Militia
Understandable.
Opinions of what is "crap" do vary and widely i might add ....
So, it bothers you that I have gone through all the appropriate channels to obtain a concealed pistol license and can LEGALLY carry my pistol(s) however I choose?
Then again, opinions are like assholes.; everyone has one and no one wants to hear it.
Thank-you. You are a woman with a brain
So what? I don't think you would be condemning a white militia group like this.
Yes.
Guns are deadly.
That's what they're designed for, Bob
D'ya think??
I watched that march in Kentucky. I took no issue with it whatsoever... until they threatened to burn down a federal building. I had no problem with the fact that they marched while carrying their guns slung across their chests. I also commend them for not making instant assumptions when one of their own accidentally shot themselves and one other of their own with a misfire. No one began shooting in retaliation or in instinct. The situation was assessed and local police and EMTs assisted those injured. No arrests.
Only if those with them are irresponsible.
uh...yeah....bullets made with lead and copper packed with an exploding powder....projected by a very large force....yeah...deadly
TG, does it bother you that I legally obtained a CPL to carry?
So is fertilizer with just some heat added.
Or mixing bleach with ammonia... two household cleaners. Are you concerned about those?
Why should it? It's your business.
I want to get an enhanced concealed carry...just too damn lazy to take a Saturday and get it done
so are baseball bats...copper pipes....large knives....cars.....chainsaws....axes....
It shouldn't. That was kind of the point I was making. When it's done legally, it certainly shouldn't.
Exactly, but Bob used the fact that they're deadly as the reason that it bothers him. That's why I posed that scenario and that question.
But they also serve a purpose. Protection, food gathering, and entertainment
The squads of white militia are a concern because they are obviously disorganized and undisciplined. Stupid shit will happen like Charlottesville and Kenosha. They're make believe Rambos who apparently can't conduct any sort of coordinated action. The threat posed by squads of white militia is simple stupidity.
NFAC is a different story. NFAC utilizes their military training to form an organized private army capable of disciplined, coordinated military action.
The white boys are probably jealous of their efficiency
Perhaps. A disorganized, undisciplined militia wouldn't stand a chance against NFAC.
I see that the left has remained true to their courage of convictions. The original comment that started this discussion has conveniently disappeared.
That's exactly how the left intends to protect President Joe from himself. President Joe's failures will just disappear like @4.1.1 to @4.1.5. It never happened.
You're confident in the Boogaloo Bois?
Gee, I received a notification for a comment that lasted as long as President Joe's ban on fracking. Conveniently removed so it never happened.
No wonder the news media needs to pre-blame scapegoats. President Joe doesn't need a transition, his backside is already covered.
What could possibly go wrong?
Since Oklahoma City - a far-right crime - was exactly that kind of blast... yes.
But I'm more immediately worried about this:
Wouldn't it have been more logical to ask me... rather than a third person?
Don't look at me. I didn't make them disappear.
TY
[Deleted]
I think you may have missed clicking on the arrow beside the number to expand the thread. They are still there.
Well, so they are. I stand corrected. The @4.1.1 doesn't work if the comments are collapsed.
Not the first time I've been wrong. Thanks for pointing out my error.
Not a problem. Had it happen a few times since they instituted that feature.
Unfortunately I don't have a flock of news celebrities that make my mistakes go away as does President Joe. Unlike President Joe I have to own my mistakes and errors.
I goofed but unlike President Joe, I have to admit it.
Obviously you don't like being wrong, even though it happens all the time.
In my state pretty much everybody carries both open and concealed without any sort of permit needed.
Actually what that picture shows is the the Not Fucking Around Coalition during a protest march.
I did.
If they are LEGALLY carrying, I support anyone in carrying their gun no matter who it is or who they're affiliated with, because I am LEGALLY carrying my own for defense.
So, if fertilizer is just as dangerous [and yes, I was thinking of the Oklahoma bombing as well], why aren't more people screaming to ban that? People can go "au naturale" with manure. Oh that's right... it smells bad. I don't use any kind of fertilizer anywhere near my house. I won't even use mulch. Hell, our "bug spray" is essential oils and diatomaceous earth.
You can be worried all you like, but if they're LEGALLY carrying, there's not much you can do. Because I'll tell you what, no one will be taking my right to carry away.
Most states are not like that though.
Ummmm.................
That kinda looks like it's addressed to a third party... but hey!
Accidents happen.
Do you really support these guys?
Some guys have gun fantasies. Why shouldn't gals?
Actually, most states [31] allow open carry of long guns AND handguns without any kind of permit. So the gun lobby has done a pretty good job of ensuring that any idiot can buy a weapon and carry it openly with little to no training or background checks.
Above is the question I was referring when I commented to TG. You must follow the entire conversation to understand it.
Are the LEGALLY carrying?
This is true. And I actually disagree with the lack of background checks and training for any weapon / gun.
Exactly.
Is that supposed to be Sarah Huckabee? Is she going squirrel hunting?
Even better: you should include the relevant excerpt.
Like I just did...
Do you now agree that your post was addressed to a third party? I mean... does a picture convince you?
I don't know, and for me it's irrelevant. Their attitude is more than enough to tell me that their intent is intimidation.
Do you disagree that their attitude is one of intimidation?
Since the regulations are so loose in most states, that's hardly a standard worthy of mentioning. There being no federal standards for training and background checks, anyone with the funds to do so can carry openly almost anywhere.
IMHO, open carry is inherently intimidation. Even if open carrying is 'just meant as deterrence', that's intimidation by definition. So that puts 2 rights at odds since people also have the right not to be intimidated. That is why I don't believe that open carry should be allowed at polling places.
That comment to TG was in reference to the question I posed to you [as mentioned in my previous reply to you today] and she answered. I explained to her that I had posed the question to YOU to make my point. That was NOT a question as you're implying.
Have a lovely day.
I disagree. I don't find it any more intimidating than the military standing in front of a government building protecting it.
Sort of like marching with deadly tiki torches? Yeah, yeah. NFAC's protest marches were honorable and just.
NFAC's two different marches in two different states are a show of force by an army. Those marches served the same purpose as a military parade in North Korea or Russia or China or Iran. The marches, by a regimental strength military force, are an organized and disciplined form of public intimidation.
No Nerm, NOTHING like that. Did the NFAC march outside of places of worship to intimidate parishioners? Did the attack unarmed students? Did the mace anyone? Beat anyone?
Why the ridiculous comparisons Nerm?
They had permits and were organized and peaceful. So what is your issue with it? Please be specific.
They are a self proclaimed militia, NOT an army.
Bullshit hyperbole.
First of all Nerm, about 200 members of NFAC participated, less than one fifth of a regiment.
Secondly, it's starting to look like the only reason you and others are intimidated by NFAC in particular is because of their skin color, since I'm not reading anything from you feeling the same about white militias.
The military is presumed to be defending the law.
There is nothing to indicate that these militia clowns are defending the law. On the contrary, they state their intention to have their way, regardless of the law.
And they show their guns to make it clear that they will use violence if they so desire.
Do you really support them?
NFAC? Aren't those the same guys that shot their own people by mistake a while back? Capable, disciplined , and coordinated? Don't sound like it.
Well, you know what it is - "Happiness is a Warm Gun".
.
No need to reinvent the wheel here.
All he would have to do is follow the same template used by the left for the last four years.
Embrace the hate and resist baby .... resist .....
Resisting far right wing fascism and the resulting corruption is every citizen's duty.
Resisting far left wing totalitarianism and crackpottery is every good citizens duty, citizen.
Do you want to hear more?
Liked that movie but the book was much better. Have been a Heinlein fan since I was a child.
Really? I must read it then.
Yep. People like Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark, and Isaac Asimov were true visionaries far ahead of their time.
I recently re-read The Flight of the Pankera. It was crap.
Heinlein did hack writing as well as some of the best.
Asimov was a good writer. A good craftsman. Never great.
Clarke was probably the most consistently good.
Well Ed, at least now you have a review of your review.
Gotta love NT .....
Yep. Everybody is/can be a critic.😁
Met RAH once at JPL. He was treated as a god.
I think I've read everything Clarke and Heinlein ever wrote. Nobody has read all of Asimov, but I've read all of his fiction, and several of his non-fiction.
I believe I have perspective...
To each their own,
What are your favorites for each author, and why?
I like Asimov's Susan Calvin / robot stories. Dr Calvin is well-written. "Liar!" is among the best short stories I've ever read.
Clarke's 2001. Everything about it.
Heinlein's Glory Road. (I love Lazarus Long, but I'm not sure Time Enough for Love is actually as good as it feels.)
As far as favorites of each author:
As far as Asimov, I liked "The Caves Of Steel" and all the R. Daneel Olivaw novels. They really put the Three Laws of Robotics into much clearer perspective for me.
As far as Arthur C. Clarke it was "The City And The Stars"/"Against The Fall Of Night" . That novel(s) really started the modern genre of novels regarding dystopian futures of humanity.
Heinlein's 'Time Enough For Love" because it was a fun read for me and tied a lot of loose ends from "Methusala's Children" and Lazarus Long and the Howard Family beginnings.
Good choices and good comments...
Thanks, I get lucky sometimes.
Yes, President Joe has created a need to pre-blame scapegoats.
People are expecting President Joe will be a failure which means there is an immediate need for excuses. The news media are being proactive in preparing their "it ain't President Joe's fault" reporting.
What would you all do without projection, deflection, and denial?
I’ve noticed that there are several members here who speak surprisingly good English, considering where they probably live.
"I’ve noticed that there are several members here who speak surprisingly good English, considering where they probably live."
DA!
But one can generally tell how Russians make mistakes writing English.
Nothing Trump does will be effective as what Obama did.
Do tell . . .
I don't know how anyone else feels, but I'm very afraid that because of his character Trump is apt to be so refengeful in the event of his defeat that he will sabotage whatever he can during his lame duck period, and do whatever he can to screw up the transition in order to make Biden look bad so he can say "I warned you, I told you so".
I think sabotage during the lame duck months is a certainty.
I agree Buzz. But, that thought does not go unseen or not understood by many. Trump will do anything in his power to create as much chaos and retaliation as he can. He will also likely tear up the WH as much as possible so that Biden will not be able to move in right away and require a good deal of repair, at the taxpayers expense, of course. And throw everyone under the bus he can.
Lots of folks feel the same way, Buzz. Trump has proven time and time again how petty and vengeful he is. In fact, if he didn't at least try to get away with massive amounts of crap, most people would be surprised.
The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 is worth a read. To promote the orderly transfer of power, Congress established a framework for the federal government to prepare for a transition from one president to another. In summary, it states that " Any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”
Personally speaking, I hope extra precautions/vetting/etc. are taken when dealing with the Trump Administration's transition. I think the man and his inner circle are capable of pretty much anything.
Too bad there aren't laws that would penalize Trump and his staff if they deliberately screw things up. For Trump, if he does, I'd suggest an extended stay in Hotel Guantanamo Bay with their specialized services.
They are already doing a purge of environmental regulations as fast as they can.
Kind of looks like they see the writing on the wall...
If he and his staff trash the White House, they can bill him for repairs
If they trash the whole country...
Then I think Gitmo would be a grand vacation resort for all of them
That assumes Biden won't look bad on his own. Trump is going to be blamed for every Biden screw-up anyway. The point of the seeded article is to pre-blame Trump.
The point of the 2020 election is to remove Trump from office. But a President Joe will continue to talk about Trump because President Joe is going to need a scapegoat. Trump may be defeated in the election but Trump won't be gone for a long, long time. We may well be hearing about Trump for the next four years.
Yes, and then he'll run again. Sure, Trump is going to be talked about for a long time. So is Adolph Hitler.
Well Joe Biden is being blamed for every tRump screw-up now and he's not even President yet, and Hillary and Barack Obama, and last I heard, they're not running for President.
You are 100% right. Trump is an awful person, through and through, and will absolutely take an election loss personally and seek to get back at those who wronged him. In this case the incoming president and the American public that voted him out. I have zero doubt that he will be on a mission post Nov 3 to fuck up as much as he can before he leaves office.
so trump is just like hillary, obama and the democrats?
I wouldn't bet on that.
trying to project on trump what the left has actually done simply aint gonna fly
Dude, no one gives a shit about Hillary. [Deleted]
If Trump loses I absolutely expect him to do everything he can to fuck this country up as much as possible, because he is that much of a bitch.
I just watched the movie Godzilla (2014), at least half of it I couldn't understand, let alone see, so what I'm wondering now is which is more unbelievable, watching the Godzilla movie, or what's happeing in the USA these days - the biggest difference is one is fiction and the other is reality.
Shit.... the two side by side.... damn I am not sure. All I see is a giant asshole breaking shit for no apparent reason.