And the hits just keep on coming.
On a day when NBC revealed that Donald Trump once suggested the U.S. should increase its nuclear arsenal “tenfold” in order to ensure that a “downward sloping” chart he didn’t like would start moving more in line with how stock prices always move (that is: “up and to the right”), Vanity Fair is out with a new piece on the Trump administration that is pretty damning in its own right.
VF’s Gabriel Sherman says that according to “a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers,” the President is “unstable,” “losing a step,” and “unraveling.”
Sherman’s contention is that there’s an epochal shift afoot, and that echoes a similar article published in the Washington Post on Tuesday. That piece cited no fewer than 18 White House officials and outside advisers as suggesting that Trump has gone into self-destruct mode.
“In a matter of days, Trump has torched bridges all around him, nearly imploded an informal deal with Democrats to protect young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, and plunged himself into the culture wars on issues ranging from birth control to the national anthem,” the Post wrote, recapping the madness before adding that this is in part an effort to rescue his reputation among a base that, as we detailed on Monday, is abandoning him.
Trump is particularly angry with Rex Tillerson, the Post went on to write. You’re reminded that Corker’s response to the Tillerson “moron” story was one of the catalysts for Trump’s Sunday Twitter attack on the Tennessee lawmaker.
“I think we are in pressure cooker territory,” a person close to Trump who spoke to the Post on a condition of anonymity said, after comparing the President to “a whistling teapot” that, when it’s not allowed “to blow off steam, can turn into a pressure cooker and explode.”
Trump is also said to be extremely insecure about “Big Luther’s” loss in Alabama (which, don’t forget, was in part due to Steve Bannon’s efforts to undercut Trump’s endorsement).
Vanity Fair’s piece reinforces all of that. Especially the latter point about Bannon and Luther Strange, whose defeat was largely the product of a propaganda blitz orchestrated by Breitbart.
“Trump’s ire is being fueled by his stalled legislative agenda and, to a surprising degree, by his decision last month to back the losing candidate Luther Strange in the Alabama Republican primary,” VF writes. “Alabama was a huge blow to his psyche,” the article quotes a person close to Trump as saying. “He saw the cult of personality was broken.”
Right. And again, that was partially Steve Bannon’s doing. Bannon is effectively moving to replace Trump as the leader of the populist cause that helped win the election. Here’s what we said on Tuesday:
And see that gets at another problem for Trump: what to do with Steve Bannon. He’s now recruiting challengers for GOP incumbents in an effort to further his quest to effectively implement the very populist revolution that Trump promised on the campaign trail. Although Bannon hasn’t yet said this explicitly, what he’s bound to do is say something like this: “vote for my candidates, they’ll do what Trump couldn’t get done.”
Consider that and then read this from the VF piece:
Even before Corker’s remarks, some West Wing advisers were worried that Trump’s behavior could cause the Cabinet to take extraordinary Constitutional measures to remove him from office. Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment–the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president.
When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?” According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term.
If that’s true, it is “big league” news, because it suggests that Bannon, now on the outside, knows there’s blood in the water. And if he thinks for a second that Trump is going to abandon “the cause” (where that means Steve’s agenda), he’ll turn on this President and use Breitbart to kill whatever’s left of his support with the populist base.
Recall that it was just a couple of months ago when Bannon said this in an interview with The Weekly Standard:
The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.
Bannon briefly succeeded in institutionalizing bigotry and xenophobia and his presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave did wonders to legitimize a poisonous ideology that has been relegated to the fringes of Western democracies since World War II.
As we wrote when Bannon left the administration, “what happens to that ideology now is anyone’s guess, but what we would suggest is that there will be an effort on the part of the alt-Right to claim that the Trump administration has been hijacked by war hawks and globalists.”
That’s exactly what’s happened and that in part explain’s Bannon’s efforts to recruit challengers for GOP incumbents ahead of 2018.
For now, we’ll leave you with one last excerpt from the Vanity Fair piece:
One former official even speculated that Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have discussed what they would do in the event Trump ordered a nuclear first strike. “Would they tackle him?” the person said
8 thoughts on “Steve Bannon Says Trump Has Only A 30% Chance Of Making It Through His First Term”
Just a matter of time. Tick tock.
“VF’s Gabriel Sherman says that according to “a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers,” the President is “unstable,” “losing a step,” and “unraveling.”
I can’t abide this kind of unprofessional and uninformative reporting. As much as I would like to see the mentally ill and the astonishingly unprofessional and incompetent Donald Trump removed from office (whom I concluded for myself long before he ran for President – to be a spoiled rich kid, an arrogant braggart, a pompous self-entitled bully, an ignorant opinionated racist, a misogynistic and consistently predictable boor – that to describe as an insufferable ass hat – would be a compliment) – removed permanently from the White House and the Office of President of the United States. The Office’s responsibilities for which he daily proves to be so completely unprepared, incapable, unable and unwilling to fulfill. Yet, I need more competent and verifiable information from reporters that their quotes come from reliable and well informed sources – be it Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or the neighbor who is always peeping out between his blinds.
It’s just become too damn easy for supposedly professional journalist to criticize and make accusations in any case about any one – while offering no substantial and verifiable form of proof to their readers. No thanks – Gabriel and H, before accepting these claims as anything more than hearsay – I want to be able to decide who is reliable myself – based on the quoted person’s qualifications, expertise, position, motivation and potential for bias. If your “sources” suddenly dry up because they fear speaking the truth, then at least we will assume that you previously actually had sources. If continue to provide verifiable information and will to stake their reputations on that information – then we will all be more informed and a lot better off.
This is the same day when NAB is waving their “free press” flag and yet here again, we are asked by that same press at large to take information purely on the reporters say so. I’m sorry, this isn’t good enough. It’s too easy for reporters to make a buck at someone else’s expense. Not just the guy accused or criticized, but at my and their reader’s expense – because I don’t like to waste my time reading gossip and rumor.
It seems like the last of the real professional journalist died a decade or more ago. Articles like this one do not reflect professional journalism and it only furthers the suspicions and anger of those who think Trump is being falsely accused by a biased for profit media – regardless that some of the same media work to support Trump. If the Trump base focuses on sloppy and unprofessional journalism, they will deflect, deny and ignore that the self-demonstrated professional and mental in-competencies that Trump creates in his own live/video news conferences -that these self-demonstrated screw-ups don’t tell a true story of Trumps, persona, professional and Presidential failures and inadequacies. This pisses me off because it makes it that much harder to get the cowardly Republican Congressmen to enact the 25th amendment and remove Trump from office.
There’s a reason that professional journalist provide sources (or withhold stories without verifiable sources) and as well for those sources to provide their names – that reason is called professional integrity and personal honesty. Otherwise it’s called rumor and gossip.
Dugger, I agree it is best to have the source to verify the report — if the source was not nervous or shy about stepping into the light, we wouldn’t need the reporter — clearly the source has a reason to stay in the shadow for now. I trust the reporters that I have followed for years – none of which are Fox fools and the like! I see a risk if the reporter got the story from another person who “heard it from” another link to the source.
I tend to believe this particular story that “a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers,” the President is “unstable,” “losing a step,” and “unraveling.” because we have heard similar rumblings from McCain and a couple others. So my trust needle leans to the true side. I also see it myself when I watch the ignorant cretin speak about anything – and his expressions – and his stupid repetitive “believe me” sentence caps.
So, I believe a reporter who has a proven track record and is known for his professional integrity and honesty is one I could rely on continuing those traits when reporting a story and withholding the source. He has a career on the line, a reputation, works for a professional media. He has worked hard to be a trusted reporter. Not every story he does requires me to simply trust him and when one does, he has earned that trust.
My two cents on this is that journalistic integrity (or whatever passes for that from the corporate media establishment) isn’t what bothers me about these stories. What bothers me is the propensity to “call the top” on Trump’s presidency. It’s about as useful as calling the top on a bull market. Let’s instead keep our powder dry and please report to me when his support plummets like Black Monday. Until then it’s all pointless conjecture.
Well thought out from a position of high journalistic standards but i must ask, should that not apply to the right also? I agree with you 100% but the “alternative” news, which dominates the public’s imagination, does not operate at such lofty levels. In short, they feed the public any line of bullshit that they decide necessary. This includes radio stations (the bastions of right-wing bullshit), Fox News (on in every bar and the poster child of slanted, dishonest news), and a myriad of internet disinformation mills.
The left really gets hung-up with facts, and fair play, and doing the right or proper or customary thing. Frankly, the right does not give a shit. This not how they’ve played this game. The right plays to win and the truth be damned. Maybe to win this war of disinformation we must climb down into the mud pit with them but at least this story is true to observable facts.
We should stick to what we know…neither you nor anyone who posts here “knows” whether Trump is mentally ill..crazy…or runs around the White House at night in a Pinball Wizard costume. What we DO know is that he lies, exaggerates constantly, displays a truly astonishing lack of self control for a President..and has married and dated some incredibly good looking women…
About the 25th Amendment…unless Congress appoints a group (undefined in the Amendment itself) OTHER than the current Cabinet it’s the Cabinet and the Vice President who decide if the consequences (unfit to serve as President) apply (Sec 4). They then report, not seek permission to implement, the replacement of the President. In this case Pence would be President and his selection of a Vice President would then be subject to Congressional confirmation.
What is interesting is the President may then transmit to President pro ten of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that he’s ready to rumble again. The same group that outed him then has 4 days to affirm their original decision in writing. Wouldn’t that be a show??
Can you name some of those reporters you trust?
MSNBC – Rachel Maddow, Steve Benen, Joe Scarborough, Ari, O’Donnell, Andrea Mitchell, Kristin at the WhiteHouse, dark hair…
NYTimes – Thomas Freidman, Ana Swanson, Dargis, Dowd
CNN – Madison Park, Jennifer Husler, Kevin Liptik, Jeff Zeleny, Dan Merica, Brian Stelter, Darcy
Some good ones at DailyBeast but I don’t recall any names! I’m old and forgetful haha! Same with TheWeek – they seem to work hard and do a good job too.
No guarantees on all the spelliings and some I cannot recall first names and I think I got the person with the right media — Liptak could be MSNBC? and Swanson may be WaPo
I pretty much watch news programs all day (retired and game shows suck and no thanks for the soap opera crap!) There are some I can picture their face but name won’t come up in my head!