First-time readers, the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020).  Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution.  More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1.  List and general description of entries to date.  Annual assessment if Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.  Profile of characters.  You’ll catch on quickly.  Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington.  (Series “Who Took Out the Donald?’ begins Entry #244.) 

Gelly:  “Alright, we’ve got our coffee refills.  Now, JC, why do you think many of the Trump supporters were brainwashed?”

JC:  “Simple.”

Greenie:  “OK. I’m game.  Why is the answer so simple?”

JC:  “My research indicated the foundation for most brainwashing was the constant use of declarative statements.”

Jordan:  “You mean like my mother used to say — ‘Do this.  Don’t do that.’”

Greenie:  “Now, Jordan, that was not nice.  Besides your mother’s behavior was part of the cultural.  She didn’t consider that brainwashing.”

Jordan:  “OK, I’ll forget I said that.”

JC:  “A key to brainwashing is always respond to a question without any hesitation and without any inkling the answer might not be correct.  If you want to brainwash someone, start by acting as if your answers are always correct, even if their boldface lies.”

Gelly:  “So, if I ask you a question and you want to start brainwashing me, you respond with a declarative statement, whether true or not.  As a brainwasher, your focus is to make sure there is little if any room for the ‘brainwashees,’ as it were, to be able to think for themselves.  Provide an answer and leave no room for questions.”

Greenie:  “If I understand correctly, as the brainwasher you want your declarative statement to reinforce whatever your position is and not have the ‘brainwashee’ think about possible answers.  Have I got it right?”

JC:  “Yes, it is important to reinforce your position, even if the position has no basis in fact and is completely based made-up, or as the Trump Administration liked to call them, ‘alternative facts.’”

Jordan:  “The brainwashing theory sounds OK but how about an example or two.”

Gelly:  “JC, may I try to give an example, please?”

JC:  “Fire away.”

Gelly:  “Back before Trump became a serious candidate, he claimed president Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not a legitimate president.”

Greenie:  “That’s seems like a good example.”

Gelly:  “Trump continued to repeat that claim despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Trump even claimed, or at least implied, that the birth announcement in the Honolulu paper was false.  So, when Obama was born…in Kenya, of course…there was a group that knew he would become president.  To make sure the newborn Kenyan kid was eligible, the group wanting him to be president put a phony birth announcement in the Honolulu paper.  That story makes perfect sense to me?  I mean really, what idiot would believe that?”

JC:  “Think about all the people who did believe it.  In addition to Trump, the gold standard for objective and credible reporting, Fox News, kept repeating the story.  And, of course, the Rush Man joined O’Reilly, Hannity, Breitbart and their ilk in reinforcing the bogus claim.  And what happened?  Many Republicans were brainwashed.  How many?”

Greenie:  “If I recall correctly, in the summer of 2016, more than 40% of all Republicans still believed Obama was born outside the US.”

Jordan:  “Can that number be right, JC?  More than 40%?  What were these people thinking?”

JC:  “The number is right…it was a little over 40% who bought in to the lie.  My study suggested that the claim was so outrageous and so bizarre that only someone who’d been brainwashed would believe it.”

Jordan:  “Let me give another example.  Trump kept saying none of the employment, income and range of other statistics provided by the Federal government could be trusted.”

JC:  “These claims are in addition to Trump’s declarative statements that global-warming was a conspiracy of what 3,000 scientists…sorry for the sidebar.”

Jordan:  “As I was saying…I have an acquaintance, a former a high-school history teacher, who supported Trump and claimed no statistics from the government were credible.  Here’s a guy that was supposed to be teaching our kids to think and understand how our country was formed and has continued to evolve.  Whether he liked it or not, the very foundation of the United States was and is the Federal government.  So what did he spout?  That any information provided by the Federal government cannot be trusted.”

Gelly:  “Fortunately, he’s no longer teaching.”

Jordan:  “Let’s pause for just a minute and look at some history.  Over the years some of the political claims in the US have been outrageous and patently false.  Yet, the country survived.  And so have a lot of other countries survived with brainwashing and false information.  What was different about this effort to brainwash?”

JC:  “Actually, nothing was different.  Now, let’s look at what happened in these countries every time a large percentage of the population got brainwashed.”

Greenie:  “You mean like what happened in Germany and Italy prior to and during WWII?  OK, so we lost a few relatives.  More like 6,000,000 Jews.  Like what happened in Russia under Stalin.  And maybe like what happened in the US south leading up to and during the Civil War?  C’mon, these were only people that got enslaved or murdered.  What’s the issue?”

Jordan:  “I know you’re being serious and your point is spot on.  What type event followed each time there was widespread brainwashing?”

Greenie:  “Some type of anarchy and sometimes is was really, really ugly.  The anarchy wasn’t some upset guys just hanging around a coffee shop.  There were real hangings.”

Jordan:  “JC, you’re the expert.  Why does anarchy often follow the brainwashing?  Why not a peaceful transition?”

JC:  “When brainwashed, the populous acts more like robots, not really thinking about what they’re doing.  Then at some point, things start to get so far out of whack that more and more people get jolted back to reality.”

Gelly:  “Like having an ‘ah ha’ moment?”

JC:  “Exactly.  After the ‘ah ha’ moment, people feel duped and betrayed.  They are so frustrated and so angry at the country’s leaders…and even themselves…that a peaceful transition is nearly impossible.”

Jordan:  “I can buy that logic for most egregious situations.  But do you think the same type anger occurred after the FBI took out Trump?  After all, the main culprit was gone.”

Greenie:  “So you’re asking why we still had a Revenge Revolution.  Once Trump was out, why didn’t people just let go and move on?”

JC:  “My view is the Trump supporters also felt duped, really screwed, by a lot of Republican members of the House and Senate, state representatives and even some local politicians.  Many of these politicians supported….and even enhanced the Trump lies. A good example is how many of these Republican politicians kept claiming for a long time that Donnie Junior’s meeting with the Russians was no big deal and it was just part of a witch hunt.”

Greenie:  “Then a lot of Republicans began to realize the significance of the meeting.  It was the intent, not the outcome.”

Jordan:  “Trump’s argument was so incredibly phony – nothing of value came out of the meeting.  Trust me, he claimed.  Well, Junior, try your logic on the police after you tried to rob a bank but the walked away empty handed.  ‘Gee, officer, I’m not guilty of attempted robbery because I didn’t the money.’  The officer replies, ‘Excuse me, Donnie Junior but attempted robbery is a felony.  Do you understand?’”

Gelly:  “His agreement to meet the Russians also violated some statutes affecting national security.  So why did it seem to take people a long time to understand what was really going on?”

JC:  “Brainwashing is very effective…up to a point.  Finally, at least for a lot of people, the situation becomes so out of kilter that the regular brain kicks back in.  When many of the Republicans finally woke up to the Trump shenanigans, they had become so angry they couldn’t just let it go.  Even though Trump was gone by then, people still felt the need to revolt and throw out many of the Republican politicians.”

Greenie:  “So as part of throwing da bums out, we got the Revenge Revolution.  And, now, JC, we need to have our own revolt and get out of here.  It’s been a pleasure.”

Gelly:  “Thanks very much for staying after I got back.  Come back soon, please.” 

Jordan: “Come back any time.”      

First-time readers, the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020).  Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution.  More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1.  List and general description of entries to date.  Annual assessment if Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.  Profile of characters.  You’ll catch on quickly.  Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington a few days after the dinner meeting with Gelly, JC and Greenie.  (Lead-n.  Last comment in conversation, Entry #252, JC said, “Follow the money.”)  (Series “Who Took Out the Donald?’ begins Entry #244.) 

Greenie:  “JC, I agree that a lot of people in Congress have been influenced by money.  Trump certainly was, too.  But…”

JC:  “…but you think there’s more, right?”

Greenie:  “I don’t want to sound as if I’m beating a dead horse but I want to come back to Jordan’s theory about the FBI.”

JC:  “When you said dead horse, what popped into my head was the classic bedroom scene from the ‘Godfather.’”

Greenie:  “Probably a good scenario.  Think about the relationship between the movie director, aka Trump, and the mob boss, in this case the FBI.  Not suggesting James Comey was a mob boss…well, you get the idea.”

Jordan:  “We get the idea.  The movie director sticks his finger in the eye of the mafia don, thinking he can intimidate him.”

Greenie:  “The movie director’s problem?  He was either too stupid to realize the potential consequences or had too much hubris.  And look what happened to the director’s prized possession.”

Matt:  “I’d never thought about Trump’s behavior that way.  The comparison to the movie guy in the ‘Godfather’ is an interesting one.”

Greenie:  “Think about it.  Trump insults Comey publically.  He also tries to convince Comey to drop any investigation into Trump’s cronies.”

JC:  “Then Comey testifies in Congress about Trump’s behavior.  How does Trump react?  Trump and his lawyer claim Comey lied and Trump was completely exonerated by ‘Comey-the-Liar’s’ testimony.  Apparently Trump and his high-priced real-estate lawyer didn’t listen very well.”

Matt:  “In fairness to the Donald, there was no smoking gun in Comey’s testimony…at least his public testimony.”

Greenie:  “Matt, c’mon.  I know you’re a reporter and want to be fair, but you sound like you work for Fox News.”

Matt:  “Since when did Fox News become a real news organization?  Anyway, Comey’s testimony did not provide clear-cut evidence of obstruction of justice.  Questionable behavior by Trump?  Definitely, but no clear-cut evidence of obstruction.”

JC:  “There was clear-cut evidence Trump did not understand how government works.  You know the stuff we were taught in 8^th grade civics class.  Donald, were you asleep the entire semester?”

Matt:  “What I think Trump failed to realize and certainly didn’t appreciate was the out Comey gave him.”

Greenie:  “You mean the out that women use all the time?  All Trump had to do was keep the Twitter account in silent mode and, then if he had any brains, say he was sorry that he stepped over the line that separates the responsibilities of different branches of government.  I mean, how hard was it to make an apology?”

Jordan:  “I hadn’t thought about that.  An apology could have sucked most of the air out of the investigation.  It certainly couldn’t have hurt.”

JC:  “But, no, the Donald thought he was doing another episode of the ‘Apprentice.’  Scowl and look mean.  For some reason he couldn’t apologize and took the opposite approach by ratcheting up the negative rhetoric.”

Jordan:  “He also set up a no-win situation for himself – claiming yet again there were recordings of the conversation with Comey that exonerated him but never showing the evidence.”

Matt:  “And then offered to testify under oath about Comey and other issues.  Trump made some really stupid comments but still not enough of a reason for the FBI to take him out.”

JC:  “Jordan, the FBI is your theory.  What about Matt’s question?”

Jordan:  “We’ve talked about this before.  The FBI, in my opinion, considered Trump to be mentally spiraling more and more out of control.  We’ll probably never know the entire story but according to credible reports, when Trump would watch TV in the living quarters of the White House, he would scream at reports he didn’t like.”

Matt:  “Sounds like Nixon but how about some more examples, please.”

Jordan:  “Reacting to Comey’s testimony was the most obvious at the time.  But two other critical areas were out of control.”

Greenie:  “I’m guessing diplomatic relations was one.  And for #2, I’ll go with defense.”

Jordan:  “Greenie, you’re two for two.  Take diplomacy.  In short order, Trump managed…in the most polite terms…to give the finger to our strongest allies – Germany, England, France and Israel.  Then he chastised Qatar for supporting terrorists.  Did he realize the US had a major military base in Qatar?”

JC:  “Probably not.  Did he even know Qatar was a country…let alone where it was?  And the country he supported instead of Qatar?  Saudi Arabia.  Mmm, the Donald must have forgotten about where the 9/11 terrorists came from.”

Jordan:  “I think worse than the public chastising of Qatar was Trump publicly ignoring efforts and statements by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State.”

Matt:  “He did make Tillerson and Mattis each look like a fool.  Each had worked hard to convince NATO allies that the US was committed.  Then during the meeting at NATO, Trump claims…incorrectly I might add…claims that US taxpayers were footing the bill for other NATO countries.  Worse still, at the NATO meeting he refused to support Article 5…the key to NATO.”

JC:  “Article 5 is the one where each country commits to defend other members, right?”

Jordan:  “Yes and Article 5 is the cornerstone of NATO.  Within a few days of insulting secretaries of Defense and State…and NATO allies…he throws the Attorney General under the bus.  Why?  Because in Trump-world the AG displayed ‘weakness’ by recusing himself from the Russia investigation.”

Greenie:  “Can’t have the Attorney General following the law.  Have to be tough.”

Matt:  “I think it was the next week…maybe two weeks later…he started trashing the Robert Mueller, special counsel leading the investigation, and Rod Rosenstein, the second in command at Justice who was managing Mueller.  Trashing those guys was not smart.”

Jordan:  “This had Watergate written all over.  In fact, and I hadn’t really thought about it until now, but as I recall, most of the Trump outrages against the special counsel and Justice occurred mid-June.  I remember it was after Memorial Day and before the 4^th of July.  And when was the Watergate break-in?”

Greenie:  “Mid-June.  I remember because we’d just moved to Alexandria…Virginia, not Egypt.”

JC:  “So the guys at the FBI, who have extensive experience analyzing bizarre behavior, look at Trump and concluded he was too dangerous to stay in the job.”

Greenie:  “Then one of the FBI reps went to meet the reality TV star and make him and offer he couldn’t refuse.”

Jordan:  “You mean ‘Donald, do yourself a favor.  Resign and go play golf.’  And, oh, by the way, if you do resign we’ll also quietly drop all but the most egregious illegal money transactions with the Russians.”

JC:  “But like the movie director in the ‘Godfather,’ Trump refused, which left the FBI no choice but to take him out and save the country.”

(Continued)   

First-time readers, the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020).  Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution.  More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1.  List and general description of entries to date.  Annual assessment if Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.  Profile of characters.  You’ll catch on quickly.  Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington a few days after the dinner meeting with Gelly, JC and Greenie.  Entry #252 continues Entry #251.  (Series about “Who Took Out the Donald?’ begins Entry #244.) 

JC:  “I don’t believe it either.  Pence and Sessions must have gotten some kind of payoff.  Maybe McConnell, too.  Otherwise, why would they be complicit?”

Greenie:  “Think about Trump’s meeting with the Russians in the Oval Office.   No reporters except for a Russian photographer.  Only when the photographs were published by the Russians did the US public know who really attended the meeting.”

JC:  “What about Trump’s meetings in Saudi Arabia.  Lots of gold and glitter…and oh, yes, the huge military purchase allegedly negotiated by Kushner.  Just for fun, where were Lockheed-Martin and Boeing?  Aren’t they usually part of these kinds of defense deals?”

Greenie:  “So Trump slobbers all over the Russian’s the Saudi’s and then a few days later trashes our allies in NATO.  Trump was clearly not working for the best interests of the United States.  His argument at NATO about the extra burden on US taxpayers was wrong.  A week or so later his argument to drop out of the Paris climate accord was completely false.  That’s why I believe there was lots of money funneled to the Trump family.”

Matt:  “And you think Pence and Sessions were in on the deal, too?”

JC:  “Sessions and Pence were up to their eyeballs in the transition team.  They knew all about Kushner’s secret meetings with the Russians about back-channel communications…and a lot of other stuff.  What they probably didn’t know was how much Trump or the family was really being paid.”

Matt:  “You think Trump’s tax returns would have helped convince people not to continue supporting Trump?”

Jordan:  “Let me jump in. Yes, the tax returns would have helped.  Highly likely that most, if not all the foreign payments were never reported.  Releasing the returns would have subjected Trump, and probably Kushner and other family members, to income tax evasion.  In addition to tax evasion acknowledging payments from foreign governments would have violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution.”

Greenie:  “So releasing the tax returns could be a fast road to jail time or impeachment…or both.  Yet, despite all these negative reports, most Trump voters kept supporting him.  Why? Didn’t they connect the dots?”

JC:  “Supporters claimed the events were left-wing hyperbole and the actions by Trump were meaningless or innocent.  I don’t buy in.  There was a pattern.  Too many so-called “odd” events in such a short period of time not only doesn’t smell right…but it defies logic.”

Greenie:  “Jordan, weren’t you a budding actuary at one time?  Whadda think the odds are that all these suspicious events in such a short period were mere coincidences and therefore meaningless?  Maybe 100:1.  Maybe 1,000:1?”

Jordan:  “I’d say the odds were well beyond 1,000,000:1 and likely well above 100,000,000:1.”

Matt:  “So about the same odds as winning the lottery and getting hit by lightning the same day?”

Jordan:  “About right.  Good comparison.”

Greenie:  “Then why did the Trumpsters keep supporting him?  It makes no sense.”

Jordan:  “I think three reasons.”

JC:  “Let me guess.  #1 is supporters didn’t really understand the issues.  Recall Trump saying something like, ‘Who knew healthcare was so complicated?”

Greenie:  “Or, another famous quote, ‘Gee, I didn’t know being president would be so hard.’  Donald, had you been living in a cave?”

Jordan:  “Ok, Greenie, wanna take a shot at another reason?”

Greenie:  “Supporters didn’t, or maybe couldn’t, link the events.  To them, all the events were discreet and there was no pattern.  Without a pattern each event could be explained away, and therefore no pattern existed.”

Matt:  “I agree with one exception.  People with a college degree who continued to support Trump after the first few months in office.  It’s impossible…or at least I think it is…to go through college and not develop some understanding of how events are linked.”

Jordan:  “I’d like to think you’re right, Matt, but apparently a bunch of people made it through college and never grasped that concept.  JC, have another reason?”

JC:  “This idea might be a bit off the wall but I think explains why some people continued to support Trump despite all the evidence against him…and supported Trump even though many of his actions were against their own economic interests.”

Greenie:  “If I said Richard Condon would I be on the right track?”

JC:  “Bingo.”

Greenie:  “Then, how?  It’s one thing to brainwash an individual, or even small group of people.  How were so many people brainwashed?”

JC:  “I said the idea seems a bit off the wall, but…”

Jordan:  “Now it’s my turn to guess…Fox News.”

Greenie:  “Really?  You think Fox News could have brainwashed millions of people?”

JC:  “Yes, Fox News.  I’m not certain that was the intent of Fox News, at least when it was started.”

Greenie:  “If they did brainwash people, how so?”

JC:  “A confluence of events.  Newspaper readership had been on a long slide…really since the introduction of national and local TV news programs.  Then cable becomes more and more popular.”

Jordan:  “So by 2016, for tens of millions of people, the major networks evening news programs, which were never challenged as a credible source, have been replaced by cable news.  And the lead cable channel for a number of years and leading up to the Trump election was none other than Roger Ailes’ ‘fair-and-balanced’ hard-right Fox News.”

Matt:  “C’mon Jordan, to be fair…and balanced, all cable was a bit slanted.”

Jordan:  “I agree the other channels could be a bit biased at times, but not like Fox.  You know as well as I that Fox should have been called the ‘pants-on-fire’ network.”

Matt:  “I’ve forgotten the source…but I remember it was a credible 3^rd party and well-respected by serious journalists.  Anyway, the study indicated at least 50% and I think more like 60% of the claims made on Fox News were either blatantly false or somewhat false.”

Greenie:  “Did Kelly Ann Conway then provide her ‘alternative facts’ disputing the study?”

JC:  “That’s my point.  Fox routinely made up stuff and presented as hard facts.  Trump supporters actually considered Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as serious journalists.”

Greenie:  “Let’s not forget the radio guru of bologna…Rush Man.”

Jordan:  “I recall a conversation I had with a friend…a former high-school history teacher.  Here’s a guy with a master’s degree who said to me one day when we were talking about government policy, you have your facts and I have mine.”

JC:  “Was he a Fox News regular?”

Jordan:  “Hard-core Fox along with Breitbart and who knows what else.  To him, the New York Times, and eventually the Wall Street Journal, were filled with falsehoods and couldn’t be trusted.  He also claimed that 80% of CNN’s news broadcasts were fake.”

Greenie:  “He really said that?”

Jordan:  “Yes.  He’s not a data point of one.  I know of two other friends from my undergrad days not far off his attitude…and who knows how many others.  So I think the idea of wide-spread brainwashing might not be far off the truth.”

Greenie:  “I agree it sounds silly.  But it could explain why so many Trumpsters refused to believe the evidence.”

Matt:  “Let me go back and ask again.  What about certain members of Congress…McConnell, for example.  Was he brainwashed?  Is that why he stonewalled any investigation of Trump?  What about Pence and Sessions?  Were they brainwashed?

JC:  “For those guys, follow the money.”

(Continued)