On May 18 I said here that President Trump was teetering on the edge of a political cliff, and that if obstruction of justice was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump should go – period, end of story. And in less than a week, the “evidence” appears to continue to mount against him. But can we trust the Mainstream Media’s reporting on said “evidence”?
Trump is a walking contradiction, and if you are a Never Trumper it is a difficult dynamic to swallow. As outlined in the May 18th post cited above, for every “smoking gun” statement there is a corresponding statement on the flip-side; so while difficult to analyze, it is utterly disingenuous to only emphasize Side A if there is a corresponding Side B. But of course, that is what the Mainstream Media is doing.
Take the title of this recent Axios article for example: “Report: Trump asked intel chiefs to deny evidence of Russia collusion.” Think about it – this title implies Trump asked Intel chiefs to lie about known evidence. A “yuge” deal. But if you dig into the associated Washington Post article, you will find the following quote:
“In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange.”
“…IF THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE…” !!!!
So conclusion #1: If the aggregate body of evidence was put on the table, my guess is that we would see a mosh pit of contradictions, line flirting, and overall jostling for position by the Trump Administration and the Intel Community. Neither side is innocent; and both should, frankly, SHUT THE ___ UP.
The way to analyze Trump is to follow what he does, not what he says. He said he wanted a “complete” ban of Muslims; he instead proposed a temporary, country-specific travel ban on countries the federal government deemed an above-average security threat. He said he would rip up trade agreements; he instead has entered into balanced negotiations with key trading partners. He said he respects Putin; he instead disrespected Putin on the world stage by launching rockets under his nose in Syria. He said he would be honored to have a face-to-face with the North Korean Fat Man; he instead has put the developed world on high alert with regard to the North Korean threat. He said he wanted all Americans to have healthcare insurance; he instead is proposing cuts to projected Medicaid spending.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Part 2 of this short post is a quick analysis of the “market” that is the sentiment toward President Trump.
If Trump’s approval rating is his “stock price”, my April 7 post made a poor short-term call, predicting that it would rise to YTD highs on the back of the West Wing restructuring an decisive action taken in Syria. On April 7 Trump’s Gallup approval rating was 40%; and while it did go on to rise to 43% on April 19, it has since fallen to 38% today.
But as I outlined in a May 4 post, when the price of a stock fails to break down to new lows upon the announcement of seemingly more negative news, chances are high the stock is done falling. So while anyone not living under a political rock would acknowledge that the news flow over the last two weeks appears to be the most negative to-date for the Trump Administration…the fact that Trump’s approval rating failed to break to new lows is extremely telling. And with all due respect to the New York Times – which, unlike what Trump would lead you to believe, is the best political newspaper in America – it is articles and titles like the following that are contributing heavily to the staunch defense of President Trump and corresponding mistrust of the media’s coverage of him: “Will the Presidency Survive This President?”