Robert Steele says one thing, Steve Pieczenik says another thing (about why Flynn was ousted). Maybe they need to get together and compare notes. Unless I am proposing a false dichotomy here, in other words, can they both be right? This is more of a question of who to believe rather than a defense of Pence. You feel me?
per your request ;)
Piezcenik mentions the "Triumverate" including Mattis, Pompeo as part of the enduring inner group, whereas Flynn was not necessarily (according to Dr. P) intended to be long term. It's hard to believe that Flynn's job was planned to be THAT short lived, and Trump's statement in the press conference regarding his reasons for not keeping Flynn is consistent with his management style. Flynn's saying "I don't remember", (my dog ate the homework), was enough for Trump to cut him loose, especially when he perhaps had Ret. Vice Adm. Harward as a potential pick waiting in the wings. Piezcenik's "it was all according to plan" is a stretch for me, but the outcome may have achieved the goal nonetheless, i.e., now there is a justified public reason to tear up the floorboards and expose the leakers of the NSA, CIA etc. and whoever else needs to be exposed. Because so many are trying to isolate Trump, and because I believe Pence definitely helped Trump win via the VP debate performance, it's hard for me to doubt Pence's integrity at this point in time. If Pence was a Neocon plant, why not just sabotage Trump during before the election? Instead, Pence was a great asset to Trump's campaign, even to the point of alienating his former "best friend" Flake. GOP was blindsided by Trump's win, whatever their expectations of Pence may have been, winning the election doesn't appear to be one of them.
I also wondered about that and had considered a couple of speculations: The ban on lobbying and the idea of climbing a mountain of corruption after a 40 year career that could include a nice retirement with Lockheed.
However, I now see a CBS news article stating that "sources" say it was an issue with staffing. President Trump wants Dep. National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to keep her post and Harward disagreed with that decision and so declined the position.
Thanks. Yeah I saw that. Truth is who really knows. They initially were saying he wanted no part of an administration in "disarray," and that Trump tried to win him back.
So the reported story on his reasons keeps changing? hmmmm......the kind of reporting that reminds me of the CP crisis actor story, so called no shot, 1,2,3 shoots, floor, ceiling, computer "shooter" LOL.
Maybe it's simply that he doesn't want to burn any bridges as he winds down a long career or someone convinced him it's to his benefit to decline. It takes an unprecedented level of courage to do what Trump is attempting to doing.
view the rest of the comments →
bopper ago
Robert Steele says one thing, Steve Pieczenik says another thing (about why Flynn was ousted). Maybe they need to get together and compare notes. Unless I am proposing a false dichotomy here, in other words, can they both be right? This is more of a question of who to believe rather than a defense of Pence. You feel me?
kestrel9 ago
per your request ;) Piezcenik mentions the "Triumverate" including Mattis, Pompeo as part of the enduring inner group, whereas Flynn was not necessarily (according to Dr. P) intended to be long term. It's hard to believe that Flynn's job was planned to be THAT short lived, and Trump's statement in the press conference regarding his reasons for not keeping Flynn is consistent with his management style. Flynn's saying "I don't remember", (my dog ate the homework), was enough for Trump to cut him loose, especially when he perhaps had Ret. Vice Adm. Harward as a potential pick waiting in the wings. Piezcenik's "it was all according to plan" is a stretch for me, but the outcome may have achieved the goal nonetheless, i.e., now there is a justified public reason to tear up the floorboards and expose the leakers of the NSA, CIA etc. and whoever else needs to be exposed. Because so many are trying to isolate Trump, and because I believe Pence definitely helped Trump win via the VP debate performance, it's hard for me to doubt Pence's integrity at this point in time. If Pence was a Neocon plant, why not just sabotage Trump during before the election? Instead, Pence was a great asset to Trump's campaign, even to the point of alienating his former "best friend" Flake. GOP was blindsided by Trump's win, whatever their expectations of Pence may have been, winning the election doesn't appear to be one of them.
bopper ago
That "potential pick" bailed. Ret. Vice Adm. Harward. Edit: So that didn't work out too well for Trump. Weird.
kestrel9 ago
I also wondered about that and had considered a couple of speculations: The ban on lobbying and the idea of climbing a mountain of corruption after a 40 year career that could include a nice retirement with Lockheed. However, I now see a CBS news article stating that "sources" say it was an issue with staffing. President Trump wants Dep. National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to keep her post and Harward disagreed with that decision and so declined the position.
bopper ago
Thanks. Yeah I saw that. Truth is who really knows. They initially were saying he wanted no part of an administration in "disarray," and that Trump tried to win him back.
kestrel9 ago
So the reported story on his reasons keeps changing? hmmmm......the kind of reporting that reminds me of the CP crisis actor story, so called no shot, 1,2,3 shoots, floor, ceiling, computer "shooter" LOL.
Maybe it's simply that he doesn't want to burn any bridges as he winds down a long career or someone convinced him it's to his benefit to decline. It takes an unprecedented level of courage to do what Trump is attempting to doing.
bopper ago
Exactly. I don't think I myself would be game for it :)