MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > The real reason Trump picked Whitaker

The real reason Trump picked Whitaker


So we have Whitaker on record saying the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt. We also have him saying Mueller should not have access to Trump's family finances. We also have Rosenstein who is supposed to be next in line as it's supposed to be a 'chain of command' type deal, resulting in the most obvious constitutional crisis since Watergate.

None of that matters. The goal is to create chaos. It's the same goal for his supporters, and it's the same goal for Fox News.

It's even the same goal as the Trumpsters on this board. They aren't here to defend. They are here to cheer the disruption.

And the cycle continues :/

reply

Whitaker pursued a CNN commentator job with the specific goal in mind of getting Trump's attention for a DoJ appointment. Apparently he was so effective playing the role of Trump's #1 CNN asslicker it got him a job as Sessions chief of staff and now the AG job.

Whitaker knows exactly what's expected of him. He's spent the last year and a half auditioning for this role.

I don't believe Trump appointed Whitaker with the "chaos" theory in mind. I think he did it specifically to have Whitaker protect him. It's clear Trump wrongly believes the job of the AG is to protect the president, as he's talked about how Holder protected Obama and Bobby protecting Jack. That's what he expects of his AG and Whitaker's TV sycophancy convinced him he was the man for the job.

reply

"It's clear Trump wrongly believes the job of the AG is to protect the president"

The problem I have is that it's too clear, and he knows he's doing it right in front of everyone's face. There are also too many on the right who were aligned with Sessions for this to work out the way you claim Trump believes it will. Trump will get his supporters on board with Whitaker, and probably Fox News, but in the end it will only serve as a disruption of media.

reply

"and he knows he's doing it right in front of everyone's face."

When has this sort of thing ever been an obstacle for him in the past? Consider the history of the man.

Whether his plot will succeed in an entirely different issue. There are lots of good reasons as to why it might fail. But IMO that doesn't change the most likely and obvious reason he appointed Whitaker in the first place.

reply

Marty Whitaker can do nothing now. He has to be confirmed by senators first.

reply

He doesn't. Sessions resigned and was not fired, so Whitaker is not subject to confirmation.

He officially took over all of Rosenstein's oversight of the Mueller probe as of Wednesday, two days ago.

reply

It's not an obstacle. He knows it's his purpose to create disruption so the establishment can continue unhindered. Trump doesn't really care if he gets Whitaker or not. If Whitaker is rejected, no biggie, because it ate up media cycles after the midterms. Trump's ego was so bruised from the midterms he had to do everything in his power to change the subject. He could probably even use Whitaker's rejection to attack democrats. If Trump was interested in convincing people he was innocent, Rosenstein would've been given the job. Here, Trump is telling democrats and the media "I'm guilty, so come at me."

I'm sure there's something in his head that thinks Whitaker will work in his favor, but whichever way the Whitaker pendulum swings, it will benefit the establishment. If Whitaker ends up protecting Trump, the media circus enables the establishment to continue on in silence. If Whitaker can't protect Trump, it's an even bigger circus, with more speeches to rally voters behind their dying emperor who is being attacked by the "demon democrats," and the establishment continues on.

reply

"He knows it's his purpose to create disruption so the establishment can continue unhindered. "

I don't know, this sounds a little too nebulous for me to believe. If there was a specific policy goal that creating the distraction would benefit, I could see it as plausible. But as it stands, a goal of sowing chaos over something as broad and poorly defined as 'so the establishment can continue unhindered' doesn't make sense to me.

Also what do you mean by 'rejection'?

Whitaker's appointment was entirely legal and within Trump's purview as president to make. Because Sessions resigned and was not fired this allowed Trump to appoint the acting AG from his own cabinet that didn't need to go through the Senate confirmation process.

Now it turns out the Appeals court appears to be wading in to the constitutionality of the Whitaker appointment and the propriety, if not legality, of Trump appointing someone to oversee an investigation into himself. But whether courts rule against his appointment on constitutional grounds is a different matter. As of Wednesday Whitaker officially took over Rosenstein's oversight of the Mueller probe. He can't be 'rejected' from a job he already holds.

And there's plenty of subterfuge he can engage in behind the scenes that will remain hidden from public accountability because of confidential nature of an ongoing investigation. He can decide to starve its budget, an idea he already floated in his role as CNN pundit, shake up personnel staffed to carry it out, and veto requests made by Mueller to issue subpoenas, pursue indictments, or open new lines of inquiry, according to outside legal experts consulted on this.

reply

"If there was a specific policy goal that creating the distraction would benefit, I could see it as plausible."

Under Bush, the media was always talking about foreign policy. There were no republican diversions capable of preventing it.

Under Obama, they were always talking about healthcare, and they were always talking about foreign policy. Again, no diversions were capable of preventing it.

Under Trump, all we hear and talk about is how stupid he is, how often he lies, the stupid decisions he makes, the racism he dog-whistles, etc. We don't ever hear about foreign policy any more. Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Syria? Yikes, we don't even hear about Iran or Palestine from the right. We aren't talking about medicare or Social Security which the establishment is preparing to gut. The subterfuge is too constant, too loud, and too obnoxious for the media to focus on anything else.

reply

I'm not disputing any of that.

My contention is with the idea that the Whitaker appointment was primarily driven by Trump's desire to add to the cacophony. That doesn't make sense to me. The press is already complicit, that's already mission accomplished and has been since Trump announced his candidacy.

Meanwhile it makes very clear sense to me why he'd want to appoint someone like Whitaker when his goal has always been about discrediting the Mueller probe and Whitaker appears to be the perfect bootlicker for the job.

reply

I'm not saying the Whitaker appointment was specifically to help the establishment. I'm saying his overall role as president is to help the establishment, by being as loud and obnoxious as possible so that's what the media covers. The Bracamontes ad is a much bigger example of it than Whitaker. Thankfully, it backfired.

He could've appointed Whitaker earlier. He could've waited a few days later than immediately after the midterms. We saw him pacing at the Wednesday press conference, fuming at how badly republicans were defeated, and snatching Acosta's press pass. He absolutely hated it. He needed the subject changed, so he did what he does best by creating chaos.

reply

But he was specifically warned off by Senators not to do it before midterms were over. In fact he got the express blessing from Lindsey, Chuck Grassley and others that they'd have their approval after midterms. The lack of Senate approval is why he didn't fire Sessions earlier, Republicans protected Sessions by making the point they weren't going to get around to approving a new nomination during the current term.

I just don't see how you could think the decision to appoint Whitaker was a spontaneous reaction to having a bad day on Wednesday. I've seen reports of Whitaker having met with Trump at least a dozen times since he got Sessions to hire him. This was clearly in the works.

reply

"In fact he got the express blessing from Lindsey, Chuck Grassley and others that they'd have their approval after midterms."

The establishment giving their approval for Trump's disarray? Hmm, you don't say :)

"I just don't see how you could think the decision to appoint Whitaker was a spontaneous reaction to having a bad day on Wednesday."

Spontaneously and specifically for the midterm aftermath? Doubtful. I'd say half in an ill-fated attempt to protect himself, and the other half to change the subject via disruption.

reply

Sure, but the primary motivation of everything he does is always going to be principally about himself, in this case self-preservation from the Mueller probe. Not about something as broad as 'protecting establishment interests'. I can assure you he did not do this to help Graham or Grassley's interests. He complied with their demands because of the risk they'd carry out their threats to not approve another nomination, he'd be stuck with Rosenstein as the acting AG.

He couldn't have expected Sessions to be so easily rolled into resigning instead of getting fired, thereby allowing him to bypass a potential Senate confirmation showdown. That must have been a nice sweet bonus. But everything I've read points to Whitaker having hard lobbied for Sessions job since he was hired as his chief of staff and undercutting him at the end.

My opinion is the disruption stuff just comes naturally for him. He doesn't really have to plan for it because it follows him for everything he does.

reply

"I can assure you he did not do this to help Graham or Grassley's interests."

Are you sure Graham and Grassley do not have an agenda here? We have Graham throwing his buddy Sessions under the bus, and we also have Sessions allowing himself to be thrown under the bus. I sure am curious what kinda deal they made when they all agreed to this.

reply

Graham and Grassley's agenda was to try and prevent Trump from making any moves before midterms that would further galvanize Dem turnout. Firing Sessions most certainly could have had that effect.

When Graham went public a few months ago to Fox News saying Trump 'deserves to have an AG he can trust', it was an olive branch to Trump, basically saying they'd approve of a new AG just don't make any sudden moves now that could kill us in midterms.

It was actually a pretty good move strategically to do it the day after midterms since everyone was just exhausted from midterm burnout.

reply

"It was actually a pretty good move strategically to do it the day after midterms since everyone was just exhausted from midterm burnout."

It was a good strategy to change the subject of the midterm results, for sure. And repubs knew they were likely to get hit pretty hard.

reply

Well they did gain seats in the more important congressional body; the Senate. Republicans somehow maintained Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins seat, it was hardly an unequivocal victory for the Dems.

But I think they rightly anticipated the increased political risk they'd have if Trump firing Sessions had been the primary topic of controversy on the airwaves leading up to the midterms.

reply

There's one of those stupid people I was talking about. One idiot speaks a phrase to his audience, and they repeat it for life because they concede that idiot is far more intelligent... cuz dey sawl him on da tv show.

See, it's so easy to pick you dimwits apart. You always set it up so perfectly with your own brainless nature. Now I guess it's time to go back to claiming you're just here for lulz and rep tears. When all else fails, pull a trollface. lolz

reply

I thought you were a trump's #1 cheerleader, and here you are posting a rant that describes trump and his followers. What gives?

reply

He had me confused there. It took me a second before I realized he copied and pasted it from something I wrote earlier.

Guess I struck a nerve there.

reply

Sorry I hurt your feelings, Bubba :|

We usually get along fairly well for the most part.

reply

Thank you !
Even if it's pointing out the obvious, I'm glad I'm not the only one saying it.

reply

He is an agent of chaos. Sometimes people need to be reminded that that is his intended purpose.

reply

I think that's what Putin sees in him. I have a hard time believing he sees himself that way.

He's too lacking in self awareness to be a Petyr Baelish or anything close.

reply

He knows he is disruptive to the media though, and he knows the military industrial complex is happy with him. It's not a sinister plot to help the establishment. It's a desire to be respected. One glance at our military budget will tell you where he's getting that respect. And we're currently not involved in a war, and ISIS has been "defeated."

reply

The irony is that while he may have bought off the military contractors, it's a far cry from saying the military itself is happy with him.

Some are, like the commanders in the field when Trump signed off giving them the autonomy to make their own decisions unlike Obama who micromanaged every decision himself.

But there are plenty who think he's a buffoon. Especially in IC. My dad works IC, doing what I have no idea since he's never said a word as to what he does and always refuses to indulge when asked, but my impression from him is that there are many who think he has no business as CiC because he has no idea what he's doing. My take is that they're absolutely right.

reply

Oh definitely. The military industrial complex are the establishment I'm referring to. And most of them probably see him as a buffoon too... but a useful buffoon.

reply