Did Donald Trump Hire Someone To Bomb New York City And New Jersey? Some People Are Saying He Did.

Just think about it. Donald Trump had a bad day on Friday. He not only got a lot of hyper-negative press for pulling a con on journalists—by pretending he was going to have a press conference and renounce his birtherism when he really used the event to get free publicity for his new hotel and himself—he also got a lot of bad press for launching yet another Big Lie that it was Hillary Clinton who was responsible for the birther movement (a lie his surrogates spent Sunday perpetuating with Goebbels-like intensity; more below). By all measures, it was a bad day and a bad weekend for Trump.

And there was no better way to make everyone forget about birtherism and Trump’s pathological lying—and, of course, look to him for “tough and smart and vigilant” leadership—than to get a shiny new terrorist attack in the news.  And since terrorists didn’t seem to be cooperating, Trump had to do something. He had to act fast. There was no time to lose.

Now, rightly, you should demand to see just what evidence there is to support the claim that Trump may have been involved in the terrorist attacks on Saturday night. Well, I will use a patented Trumpian analysis of the “facts” and list the evidence for you:

  1. Some people are saying Trump was involved.
  2. Trump’s campaign had riled the press on Friday and he was getting a lot of negative coverage, including journalists actually saying, finally, that he was lying about birtherism. Motive.
  3. Before any local official confirmed what had happened Saturday night, Trump stepped off his plane in Colorado and unequivocally stated that “a bomb went off in New York.” How did he know that? How did he know the explosion wasn’t some kind of gas leak that got ignited and not a bomb at all?
  4. The first blast was in Manhattan. Trump lives in Manhattan.
  5. Other explosions happened in New Jersey. Trump once had casinos in New Jersey and admits he has lots of connections there.
  6. A person police say may be involved in the bombings is a naturalized citizen originally from Afghanistan who now lives in New Jersey. That fits nicely, so nicely, into Trump’s narrative about why we should be scared of all such people.
  7. Dotrump-and-terror-suspecdtnald Trump said almost exactly a year ago—coincidence?—the following to CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I have friends that are Muslims.” Was one of his friends the bomber (or bombers) in New York and New Jersey? Some people are saying they might be.
  8. In December of last year Trump said, “Many Muslim friends of mine are in agreement with me. They say, ‘Donald, you brought something up to the fore that is so brilliant and so fantastic.'” What could be more brilliant and fantastic than a terrorist attack executed just in time to change Trump’s negative coverage on the campaign trail?
  9. Again in December of last year he said, “I have been called by more Muslims saying what you are doing is a great thing, not a bad thing. Believe it or not, I have a lot of friends that are Muslim, and they call me…” So, Trump has admitted he talks to a lot of Muslims. Did he talk to the bomber or bombers in New York and New Jersey? Somewhere, some people are saying he may have.
  10. Trump recently had killing on his mind when he suggested we take the guns away from Hillary Clinton’s security detail and, “Let’s see what happens to her.”

In addition to this “evidence,” we can also see that the Trump campaign, as mentioned, has resorted to keeping alive a Big Lie about Hillary Clinton starting the birther movement, a lie so big and brazen that it would make Joseph Goebbels blush. To remind you, Goebbels was Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda. He famously said,

The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

Just look at the Big Lie repeated on Sunday by some of Trump’s top propagandists:

♦ Kellyanne Conway, his campaign manager, told Face the Nation: “This started with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, number one. Number two, it was Donald Trump who put the issue to rest when he got President Obama to release his birth certificate years later…”

♦ CNN’s Jake Tapper tried to correct the record with Chris Christie, the biggest Trump hack in the country:

TAPPER: Just as a point of fact, Donald Trump did not accept when Barack Obama released his birth certificate in 2011. He kept up this whole birther thing until Friday, that’s five years.

CHRISTIE: That’s just not true. It’s just not true that he kept it up for five years.

TAPPER: Sure he did.

CHRISTIE: It’s just not true.

TAPPER: It is true.

CHRISTIE: No, Jake. It wasn’t like he was talking about it on a regular basis until then. And when the issue was raised, he made very clear the other day what he position is.

WORN OUT TAPPER: Okay.

♦ Finally, there was the chairman of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus. He said on Face the Nation:

People get convicted every single day with circumstantial evidence that is enough to tip the scale. And by the preponderance of evidence before us, Hillary Clinton or her campaign were definitely involved in this issue. We can’t keep saying it’s not true. That’s ridiculous.

As you can see, Trump and his campaign officials and surrogates (and many conservative media outlets) are willing to employ propaganda techniques in the Goebbels style, “even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

Let’s be clear: Every journalist in the country knows that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the birther movement. In fact, the Trump campaign, accidentally, proved she had nothing to do with it when it released a transcript of an interview with Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle. She said that either a volunteer or a paid staffer forwarded “an email that promoted the conspiracy” and that Hillary Clinton “made the decision immediately to let that person go.” Immediately. She didn’t need five years.

And that would be the end of the Hillary-started-it lie in any other universe except a Trump-Goebbels one. And if Trump and his campaign are willing to use such appalling Reich-like tactics, who could put it past them to hire a bomber or two in New York and New Jersey as a way of changing the subject? Let me paraphrase Priebus:

People get convicted every single day with circumstantial evidence that is enough to tip the scale. And by the preponderance of evidence before us, Donald Trump or his campaign were definitely involved in the terrorist attacks in New York and New Jersey. We can’t keep saying it’s not true. That’s ridiculous.

I want to end this piece of Trumpish speculation with something Vin Weber—a former GOP congressman from Minnesota and once a top adviser to then-Speaker Newt Gingrich—said to Jonathan Martin of The New York Times about Donald Trump:

It’s frightening. Our politics, because of him, is descending to the level of a third-world country. There’s just nothing beneath him. And I don’t know why we would think he would change if he became president. That’s what’s really scary.

“There’s just nothing beneath him,” says a fellow Republican. Case closed.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

12 Comments

  1. Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different
    ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

    The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. John F. Kennedy

    Like

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

     /  September 19, 2016

    Since we’ve gone back to the old west with concealed carry, lets lynch the the city slicker. Tall tree, short rope, no more dope named Trump. Don’t even need the 2nd Ammendment folks for this.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Speaking of Joseph Goebbels, here’s another of his maxims:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Now, if you substitute the word Trump for the word State, it’ll scare the bejeebies out of you.

    Like

    Reply
  4. ansonburlingame

     /  September 19, 2016

    Duane,

    First, watching events play out this AM, I have great respect for how law enforcement reacted and quickly ran down at least some of the people involved.

    On a completely different tangent, but related to Trump’s mental equilibrium, I watched a segment on 60 minutes last night looking into today’s world of nuclear deterrence. 60 minutes went to sea on a Trident sub, filmed a drill and interviewed the skipper. It then went to STRATCOM (Strategic Command in Omaha I believe) and interviewed the senior military officer that would begin to execute the directions of the President if ……. That man by the way is a black, 4 star submarine officer today. When asked if he would follow the orders of the President to launch such nuclear weapons even if he disagreed with the President he said “I am a military man and will follow the orders of the Commander in Chief”.

    Chilling thoughts for many perhaps. But just consider what could happen if that 4 star officer felt like the SF 49er quarterback and …….. Taken to a lower but still deadly level, consider the consequences if the skipper of that ship (early 40’s, young looking Commander (0-5 Navy rank equal to an Army Lt. Col.), felt the same way.

    60 minutes spent considerable time asking both men some “what if’s: and both men immediately responded that they would follow the orders of …… even in such circumstances. They both also emphasized that ONLY POTUS could order such actions. The implication of course was that if POTUS indeed issued such orders then it would be a whole bunch of syncophants (robots in uniform) that would carry them out, no matter what.

    That 20 minute segment forced me to relive my own participation in that chain of command long ago. It made me think about that, today, still only POTUS can make (or not make) such a decision and the entire operational COC MUST follow such orders, no matter what.

    Should we (America), today, rethink that whole sequence and put more roadblocks in the path of releasing nuclear weapons, one or many as the case may be. Keep in mind that the threat of such a release is probably the single greatest reason that nuclear weapons have never been used since WWII.

    And finally of course, should a man like Trump ever be that ultimate and singular authority to “destroy the world”, at least as we know it? Of course that answer is a simple “NO”.

    But I seriously doubt Trump ordered the bomb detonation in NYC, either. Now Hillary of course just might set one off in the offices of her “greatest enemy”, I suppose!!!!

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • Anson,

      There is quite a lengthy article at http://www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html called, “A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders.” It provides a very detailed analysis of the duty of members of the armed forces to follow only “lawful” orders. It was written before the Iraq war in Feb 2003. Among other things the author says that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) at 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer.”

      He goes on to say, “The moral and legal obligation (oath) is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.”

      Anyway, the thing goes on and on. For anyone interested in the military’s obligation to obey orders – or not– this is a good start. There are lots of links to pursue.

      Herb

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • There is breathtaking truth in Professor Mosqueda’s article. Thanks to Herb for this remarkable document. It is ironic, and terribly sad, that this prescience did nothing to stop the second Iraq war which resulted in exactly the disastrous outcomes predicted. It is also significant that there was no resistance among the military to the illegal order, not even among the officer corps. I am not surprised at this, having served myself. Obedience of orders is woven throughout all training and practice in the military, and noncompliance, which is exceedingly rare, is punished quickly and completely as a matter of course.

        I was interested to see that the author seems to be unaware that the commissioned officer’s oath of office differs from the enlisted oath in the U.S. armed forces. In the officer’s oath, there is no mention of obedience to superiors, only to the Constitution. In practice of course, it doesn’t really matter. Or, at least it hasn’t in the past. Even if Donald Trump is elected president, I predict that any launch command would be obeyed completely. There is nothing in military training that permits anything else – it’s not compatible with war. Questioning is the responsibility, nay, the duty, of the people’s elected officials.

        So, voters, and that includes you, Anson, you had better think hard and long before you vote for an impulsive, hedonistic, thin-skinned, inexperienced (in government and military) man for Commander in Chief. Or for any politician who advocates his election. This is the only bite at the apple you will get for four years.

        Jim

        Like

        Reply
  5. ansonburlingame

     /  September 20, 2016

    Wow, here we “could” go, arguing over “aggressive war” or at least “just war”.

    Read the article and then justify the use of drones that kill not only an enemy, someone clearly an enemy for all intents and purposes and by any sane definition, but also collateral damage occurs. Obama should be impeached and tried as a war criminal, given the dictates of the professor linked above. Herb has long called for criminal indictment and conviction of Bush ll and I am sure, at least in part, would use the rational expressed in the link.

    Lofty tomes about war are one thing, but the practical fact is every single President, SecDef, the whole military chain of command are confronted with the choices related to use or not use military power. Just imagine if everyone, or even a few, in that whole structure of command and control of military power quietly sat and thought very carefully about the above link and decided for themselves a particular decision was “unlawful”.

    For sure, today, many, many cops may now well decide not to use lethal force simply because such actions may be viewed by others as “unlawful”. If every cop or every soldier, sailor and marine conducted such an internal debate before following an order (or their own perception based on training) of whether or not to pull any trigger, well imagine such a world of chaos with “enemies” running free all over the world.

    I found Duane’s blog “humorous” in that he (tongue in cheek) constructed a “case” for Trump “ordering” the NYC bombing. I simply added another, but serious, reason NOT to vote for Trump. I also questioned the authority given (lawfully) to any President today to unleash nuclear weapons. The simple fact is that any President has the “power” to do so today. Are the reasons for giving such power to one person (reasons developed over 60 years of the existence of nuclear weapons) still valid today?

    Consider this scenario. A North Korean launch of a ballistic missile that could carry a nuclear warhead is detected, at the time of launch, and within one or two minutes it is “known” that that warhead will impact Pearl Harbor in say 20 minutes.

    Oh that we could freeze time, hold everything, and conduct a national debate over what to do next. Can you imagine the debate that would he conducted, how long it would take, including the second guessing as to why Hawaii did not have a fully effective but “unfunded” missiles shield, and what action (other than just “take a hit”) might result?

    I won’t belabor this and hope all of you get my simple point. Don’t vote for Trump for sure. But my God, what other reasonable choices do we have today. None that I can find!!

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • Anonymous

       /  September 20, 2016

      This is not a hard decision, do you vote for your party or your country? Trump is a sociopath that has managed to convince G.H.W.Bush and many in your party, that they cannot vote or him or assist him by voting for a third party, and are voting for Clinton. I do not think anyone other than the likes of Geoff Caldwell, would think less of you for doing as previous GOP Presidents and intelligence officials and voting for Clinton. These officials find Clinton a reasonable choice, are you of their cloth, or that of Caldwell’s?

      Like

      Reply
    • One would hope that Trump or whoever is president will not act in a vacuum. There will no doubt be many advisors who can assess the validity of the reports coming in and advise the president accordingly. Now I don’t think Trump is as crazy as that asshole in North Korea. I have to believe he understands the consequences of such a decision.

      But the red button is only one issue. The article I quoted above clearly shows that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a violation of federal and international law. Now I don’t know if General Tommy Franks, commander of the operation, was aware of the legalities or not. As I remember, Bush got a couple of White House lawyers to violate their oaths and write some phony opinions in support of his decision. But even then I’m sure Franks would have followed orders.

      But, of course, there were provable war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conduct of the war, some of which were ordered from the oval office. So, yes, I thought Bush and Cheney should be impeached and tried at the International Criminal Court. And I still think legal action against them is in order. But, no, they just give the finger to the rule of law and don’t miss a night’s sleep over it.

      There have been many instances where orders were breached based on conditions on the ground. Sergeant Dakota Meyer, for instance, refused to stand down as ordered and continued saving the lives of Afghan National Army and the remainder of his team. Sergeant Myer was not sent to the brig, or court marshaled. Instead he was given the Medal of Honor. http://gizmodo.com/5841107/how-sgt-dakota-meyer-rescued-36-soldiers-under-heavy-fire

      Like

      Reply
  6. Anonymous

     /  September 20, 2016

    Anson,

    This is not a hard decision. Trump is a sociopath that has convinced many in the GOP to vote for their country instead of their party. Former President G.H.W. Bush is reported to be voting for Clinton as a patriot, not a Republican. Over 50 intelligence officials have signed an open letter condeming Trump’s positions. I don’t think anyone in your party would condemn you for doing the right thing, other than the wackos like Geoff Caldwell, that birthed the rise of Trump. So it is a simple question, do you side with former President Bush and intelligence officials realize voting for a third party is a vote for Trump, or do you side with the likes of Caldwell?

    Like

    Reply
  7. ansonburlingame

     /  September 21, 2016

    Anonymous,

    I hope I know you personally. If that is the case please introduce yourself to me face to face and perhaps a discussion, over coffee, could ensue. But I assure you this is NOT a simple choice and for sure I don’t need a lecture of what is good for our country. My entire professional career was devoted to doing exactly that, trying to do what is best for America.

    I am the lone conservative voice (as best I can tell) in comments on this blog. My wife does not like my doing so. Why bother is her guidance. Well I “bother” to try to inject ideas in opposition to progressive ideas I oppose and do so “for the good of our country” at this obscure, local level. After all is said and done and with no help from me you can bet your bippy that Trump will get about 60% of the vote around here. I know many people that will cast such a vote in Joplin and do not consider any of them (the ones I know) “deplorable”.

    I will also point out that I have yet to read much at all in this progressive blog directed at conservatives to show why Hillary is “right” in her voluminous policy proposals. I offer one example, the current wide divide between Hillary and Trump related to education, my biggest “passion” on things that really need to be fixed.

    Neither one has come close to constructing policy proposals that move this country in the direction of regaining excellence in public education. Long term, I believe failing to do so is a very real and grave threat to the National Security of America. We have been dumbing down our kids for some 5 or 6 decades now and it continues to get worse, the quality of graduates from every public school in America.

    I stop at this point and will now go read about the “Orange Sleaze” encroaching upon America now. Of course I won’t vote in favor or such sleaze but we can argue about what color it might be!!

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

     /  September 21, 2016

    Anson,

    We have never met. There’s nothing wrong with being conservative. Clinton’s policies are estimated to add 2 trillion to the deficit, Trump’s are expected to add 10-20 trillion to the deficit, she sounds more conservative. I have no doubt Trump might get 60% in Joplin, but statewide the estimate is 50-50. Trump wants to make NATO, pay to play, do you believe that a good idea? Trump has stated he will water board and MUCH worse, do you agree with such a commander in chief? The United States own Native Americans were immigrants, we are a country of immigrants. Do we start denying entry based on religion?

    Clinton’s policies are voluminous, publicly posted and she stands by those policies. Trump on the other hand changes his position based on public opinion several times per week, appeasing different elements of HIS party. Is that the leader you want? I urge you to do what you know to be right, and not place your military friends under the command of a man unfit to be a Boy Scout leader. The only way out can prevent Trump is to vote Clinton. The GOP has sold its soul to this shyster, don’t sell yours.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: