Lol because the deep state didn't throw the kitchen sink at him in his first term and both his reelection campaigns?
Did it? I'm not sure I know the extent of "the kitchen sink" for the deep state. But they certainly didn't bring up his public connection to Epstein. That may be because their own people were vulnerable though.
He was such a bad option for them that they tried to kill him twice.
I posed this question earlier: "Why would you brave 2 impeachments, 91 indictments, 2 assassination attempts, only to give the people doing that everything they wanted?"
If you try to throw a guy in prison and then have him killed, you're not going to hold blackmail material in reserve.
Maybe? Everyone needs a Plan B. If they are blackmailing him, it's working very well. If they're not blackmailing him, he's doing the stuff they want (bomb Iran, Ukraine, suppress Epstein List) without being blackmailed. Which is worse?
(I'm not saying there is blackmail material. But I can't help but wonder, and I have been wondering for 1.5 months since his Iran nonsense.)
Did it? I'm not sure I know the extent of "the kitchen sink" for the deep state. But they certainly didn't bring up his public connection to Epstein. That may be because their own people were vulnerable though.
Again: what is the value of blackmail if you can't use it?
Assuming it exists, who says they're not using it? Why has Trump II been a neocon's fever dream after running against neocons and warmongers? That could explain it.
If I were holding blackmail archives of the deep state, I'd use 91 indictments to prevent Trump from getting elected, but just in case he is elected, then I'd want an ace up my sleeve rather than have him be a truly free agent.
Assuming it exists, who says they're not using it? Why has Trump II been a neocon's fever dream after running against neocons and warmongers? That could explain it.
No. If they had blackmail of that caliber, it would be 100% effective in stopping him from taking office. It would make no sense to hold onto it. You don't draw a knife and hold your pistol in reserve.
No. If they had blackmail of that caliber, it would be 100% effective in stopping him from taking office.
I'm not sure. And then: you have to release it. Releasing blackmail is like killing a hostage. In this case, it might reveal the whole op, because people are going to ask where this was taken, by whom, and of who else they have films.
Why open that can of worms for someone who, as you and I both believe, can easily be controlled without any blackmail whatsoever.
It would make no sense to hold onto it. You don't draw a knife and hold your pistol in reserve.
It's actually a classic strategy: gradual escalation. And hell, some people believe no one is allowed to take office if they don't have something on them. Why shoot your hostage, which is releasing your blackmail?
Did it? I'm not sure I know the extent of "the kitchen sink" for the deep state. But they certainly didn't bring up his public connection to Epstein. That may be because their own people were vulnerable though.
I posed this question earlier: "Why would you brave 2 impeachments, 91 indictments, 2 assassination attempts, only to give the people doing that everything they wanted?"
Maybe? Everyone needs a Plan B. If they are blackmailing him, it's working very well. If they're not blackmailing him, he's doing the stuff they want (bomb Iran, Ukraine, suppress Epstein List) without being blackmailed. Which is worse?
(I'm not saying there is blackmail material. But I can't help but wonder, and I have been wondering for 1.5 months since his Iran nonsense.)
Again: what is the value of blackmail if you can't use it?
Assuming it exists, who says they're not using it? Why has Trump II been a neocon's fever dream after running against neocons and warmongers? That could explain it.
If I were holding blackmail archives of the deep state, I'd use 91 indictments to prevent Trump from getting elected, but just in case he is elected, then I'd want an ace up my sleeve rather than have him be a truly free agent.
No. If they had blackmail of that caliber, it would be 100% effective in stopping him from taking office. It would make no sense to hold onto it. You don't draw a knife and hold your pistol in reserve.
I'm not sure. And then: you have to release it. Releasing blackmail is like killing a hostage. In this case, it might reveal the whole op, because people are going to ask where this was taken, by whom, and of who else they have films.
Why open that can of worms for someone who, as you and I both believe, can easily be controlled without any blackmail whatsoever.
It's actually a classic strategy: gradual escalation. And hell, some people believe no one is allowed to take office if they don't have something on them. Why shoot your hostage, which is releasing your blackmail?