Congratulations, Stupid.

[brainpanhandler]

Then again we could start by reading this spectacular mini-biography sent out this week to Harper's subscribers, most of which we all know by now but it's so well put together and overwhelming, at least as regards the man-horror himself.

http://harpers.org/blog/2017/01/tower-of-babble/

Tower of Babble
By Joe Kloc

Trump claimed he made $1.9 million from his modeling agency, which a foreign-born former model accused of "modern-day slavery," alleging that the agency forced her to lie about her age, work without a U.S. visa, and live in a crowded apartment for which she paid the agency as much as $1,600 a month to sleep in a bed beneath a window through which a homeless man once urinated on her.

Trump was the "homeless man".

[liminalOyster]

Two great must-read items on strategy and tactics by Richard Seymour and the amazing new-to-me Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, and a really good event video from Jacobin with Taylor, Scahill and Naomi Klein.

Thanks for this. The Taylor piece is excellent and just what I needed today to see my cynicism for the lazy self-indulgence it probably really is.

Maybe the best part of the past few years, for me, has been watching the rise of a bunch of brilliant intersectional feminists, many of whom are POC. Ironic that it may just end up that Hillary's militarized social justice masquerading as a base retro "women's lib" may still end up sparking the movement we really need.

Ever heard of "black lib"? Or how about "Indigenous libbers" protecting the water at Standing Rock?

I've enjoyed your posts LO and assume that you have a sincere desire to be a genuine ally to the Women's Liberation Movement. If that is the case I'd like to ask that we leave the dismissive and insulting term ""women's lib" in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

I'd also like to respectfully suggest that you learn more about the movement's internal conflicts before making ill-informed snap analyses about imaginary faction fights such as "intersectional feminists" vs "Hillary's militarized social justice (warriors?) masquerading as a base retro "women's lib".

I used the term "women's lib" in a consciously perjorative sense to denote a caricature of not-yet-necessarily-class-conscious early feminism - an incarnation which had yet to incorporate (IMHO) much attention to the MIC and/or colonialism. Not a snap analysis but an expression of something I've been thinking about and trying to pay smart attention to for years. I loathe the term "social justice warrior" and was actually trying to point to the cog dis in HRC's militarism and her serving as avatar for a variety of social justice movements (of which I and many friends, allies, etc are part.) that I don't feel she truly represents (LGBTQ marriage not least among them.)

edit: was just thinking that perhaps the way in which I meant this might be related to how bell hooks critiqued Beyonce around Lemonade. Just as motifs/aesthetics of black power were nicely fiercely presented as a sort of historical reference to revolutionary movements, hooks found other maybe big problems with Beyonce's lack of self-reflexivity about money/power, sexuality, etc. not sure I fully agreed with hooks, but point being that I meant to say, on thinking about it, that "women's lib" was almost like a cynical performance strategy in the HRC campaign but in no way an epithet meant to refer to contemporary feminist movements.

[Heaven Swan]

Two great must-read items on strategy and tactics by Richard Seymour and the amazing new-to-me Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, and a really good event video from Jacobin with Taylor, Scahill and Naomi Klein.

Thanks for this. The Taylor piece is excellent and just what I needed today to see my cynicism for the lazy self-indulgence it probably really is.

Maybe the best part of the past few years, for me, has been watching the rise of a bunch of brilliant intersectional feminists, many of whom are POC. Ironic that it may just end up that Hillary's militarized social justice masquerading as a base retro "women's lib" may still end up sparking the movement we really need.

Ever heard of "black lib"? Or how about "Indigenous libbers" protecting the water at Standing Rock?

I've enjoyed your posts LO and assume that you have a sincere desire to be a genuine ally to the Women's Liberation Movement. If that is the case I'd like to ask that we leave the dismissive and insulting term ""women's lib" in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

I'd also like to respectfully suggest that you learn more about the movement's internal conflicts before making ill-informed snap analyses about imaginary faction fights such as "intersectional feminists" vs "Hillary's militarized social justice (warriors?) masquerading as a base retro "women's lib".

I used the term "women's lib" in a consciously perjorative sense to denote a caricature of not-yet-necessarily-class-conscious early feminism - an incarnation which had yet to incorporate (IMHO) much attention to the MIC and/or colonialism. Not a snap analysis but an expression of something I've been thinking about and trying to pay smart attention to for years. I loathe the term "social justice warrior" and was actually trying to point to the cog dis in HRC's militarism and her serving as avatar for a variety of social justice movements (of which I and many friends, allies, etc are part.) that I don't feel she truly represents (LGBTQ marriage not least among them.)

edit: was just thinking that perhaps the way in which I meant this might be related to how bell hooks critiqued Beyonce around Lemonade. Just as motifs/aesthetics of black power were nicely fiercely presented as a sort of historical reference to revolutionary movements, hooks found other maybe big problems with Beyonce's lack of self-reflexivity about money/power, sexuality, etc. not sure I fully agreed with hooks, but point being that I meant to say, on thinking about it, that "women's lib" was almost like a cynical performance strategy in the HRC campaign but in no way an epithet meant to refer to contemporary feminist movements.

The initial founders of 2nd wave feminism came out of the civil rights movement. At a certain point the white civil rights activists were told that it was time to go out as agents for change in their own communities, and some of those women focused on organizing other women.

The movement gained great traction when many women who were active in the anti (Vietnam) war movement, dismayed at the sexism of their male comrades, left those groups and to put their time and energy into the Women's Liberation movement.

It was not a time of lack of anti-war or class consciousness.

The dimming or dumbing-down of class consciousness came later, with the (temporary I hope) defeat of those movements by neoliberal shapers of society and covert warfare such as deliberate introduction of drugs, cointelpro, war on the unions, etc.

The Women's Liberation movement was also a victim of the defeat of the mass movements and the overall waning of protest and activism in favor of people committing themselves to careerism and individual pursuits and solutions (neoliberal era).

Women's Liberation was no longer a grassroots popular movement and moved into the universities and NGOs and became the Women's Movement since funders of non-profit orgs (who are wealthy people looking for tax breaks or to shape society in ways favorable to them) will not fund revolution.

Eventually the movement was largely cannibalized by opportunistic women seeking to advance their careers. Voila` 3rd wave feminism.

IMO based on my research and interviews with 2nd wave feminists and abuse survivors, the element that was missing in the 2nd wave, and that has gained steam and been developed in the neoliberal years and that has the power to revitalize feminism is a bigger focus and awareness on trauma and abuse, and greater participation of survivors (in a sense all women are survivors since patriarchy is enforced through physical and psychological violence, but degrees vary).

That is one reason why I'm interested in this site, since Jeff was one of the few that had the insight and courage to reflect on the role of abuse in social problems.

[liminalOyster]

Thanks for taking the time to write this, HS. I agree very much about the critical importance of paying attention to trauma and abuse at both a personal and social scale in all liberation struggles and really appreciate that lens in Jeff Wells' writing.

I have a different feeling about third-wave feminism - that is mostly positive - and even the shorthand moniker, intersectional, but I genuinely appreciate the challenge to think more critically about my own narrative choices (ie women's lib) and how they may or may not be effective.

[Heaven Swan]

Thanks for taking the time to write this, HS. I agree very much about the critical importance of paying attention to trauma and abuse at both a personal and social scale in all liberation struggles and really appreciate that lens in Jeff Wells' writing.

I have a different feeling about third-wave feminism - that is mostly positive - and even the shorthand moniker, intersectional, but I genuinely appreciate the challenge to think more critically about my own narrative choices (ie women's lib) and how they may or may not be effective.

I also appreciate being able to have a civil and hopefully thought-provoking discourse. It's likely that we agree on more things than we disagree on.

I would definitely not call 3rd Wave feminism 'intersectional feminism". Intersectionality is a concept developed by Kimberly Crenshaw separately from feminism but yes adopted (or given lip-service and contorted) by liberal feminists. I agree that intersectionality is a great addition to movement discourse.

I heard an interview with Kimberly the other day btw and she was very happy with the Jan 21st women's march and the efforts that were made with the speaking roster, etc, and feels the Women's Movement is going in a good direction.

I critique 3rd wave feminism from the point of view of someone who joined the movement and became disillusioned from the inside. I won't go into detail about this now but let's just say that there was a general sucking up to men in the place of standing up for women, it was infiltrated by the sex industry and placed huge importance on coddling and catering to transwomen which replaced dealing with the enormous problem of abuse, trauma, sexual violence, etc towards women.

This isn't to say that nothing positive has been accomplished since the 2nd Wave, only that I feel there has been a deterioration of core values and that feminism needs a major renewal.

[JackRiddler]

Statement by the National Security Advisor General Mike Flynn

“Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.
The recent ballistic missile launch is also in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”
These are just the latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened U.S. and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea. In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region.
The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms. The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk.
President Trump has severely criticized the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama Administration, as well as the United Nations – as being weak and ineffective.
Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened.
As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

[dada]

What do you think, Jack? Is that just your standard sabre-rattling, to be expected?

Gotta go to war with someone, right. In project for the new american century-style, Iran makes 'sense.' Would be the next logical step.

A big, unthinkable, reckless step. I worry, that sounds in keeping with the way things are going.

Will America break out the 'tactical nukes?' Will the media be able to sell that to the world? Of course they will do their best.

[stefano]

I found this really interesting.

What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.

Feb 28, 2017
Eileen Reynolds

After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
...
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?
...
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
...
We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.
...
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling.
...
People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things. Daryl [the actor playing Jonathan Gordon, the male Clinton] and I have talked about this multiple times since the performances. Never once in rehearsal did we say, “play this more feminine.” So I think it was mostly the smiling piece—so many women have told me that they’re taught to smile through things that are uncomfortable.

Brief clip from a rehearsal where King (Trump) pretty much wipes the floor with Gordon (Clinton).

[liminalOyster]

I found this really interesting.

What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.

Feb 28, 2017
Eileen Reynolds

After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
...
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?
...
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
...
We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.
...
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling.
...
People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things. Daryl [the actor playing Jonathan Gordon, the male Clinton] and I have talked about this multiple times since the performances. Never once in rehearsal did we say, “play this more feminine.” So I think it was mostly the smiling piece—so many women have told me that they’re taught to smile through things that are uncomfortable.

Brief clip from a rehearsal where King (Trump) pretty much wipes the floor with Gordon (Clinton).

I came to this thread to post just this same thing. It actually suggests (problematically as it is in general) just what I thought throughout the election - that Trump's cynical folksiness would've played really well coming from the right woman (note: Palin's personality wouldn't have worked here.) The right female archetype returning to his fascist mantras ("we're gonna build a wall") would've played as matronly protector who doesn't take shit from anyone. Race could also dramatically change the overall effect - I'd have been curious to see this same experiment repeated with a Ruby Dee figure in the Trump role. Maybe Octavia Spencer.

[JackRiddler]

.

They don't do this part, but I think Female Trump stalking the stage threateningly right behind Male Clinton would have been seen as a Crazy Lady having a breakdown, end of campaign.

It's an impossible counterfactual to assess in terms of how it might have affected the election. Of course millions of people voted against Clinton mainly or in part because she is a woman (consciously, unconsciously, deniably or proudly, out of misogyny or fear, all of the above and more), and/or for Trump because he's a classic masculine bully and they take pleasure in it. But it's hard to imagine most of the same ones had not already voted against Obama because he's black, or would not have voted for any Republican candidate because they are seen as strong and unyielding. It's hard to imagine this was a major mobilizing factor for the magical swing voter or first/returning voter. Also, there must have been some portion who voted for Clinton because she is a woman (consciously, unconsciously, to make history, etc. etc.).

I think Biden would have won the voters by a bigger margin than Clinton won, mainly because he's folksy and sounds populist, but also because he's macho and would have been free to proverbially punch Trump in the nose after the first personal insult (hell, I could see that even real fisticuffs might have worked out to his favor, given the general atmosphere of this thing). Sanders of course would have had the FDR-style landslide, because he's a short squat old loud-talking Jewish socialist man with a heavy Brooklyn accent from Vermont who would have left Trump on the mat.

.

[liminalOyster]

Apparently she did the stalking thing and, according to some news source I can't re-locate, it played well as a form of symbolically encircling his dishonesty to "protect" the audience.

[JackRiddler]

.

Context! The "Russia stole my homework" shit became the central all-purpose program for explaining everything in the world already last summer, and has been propagated constantly as gospel on penalty of being declared a dupe and traitor ever since by DNC, Clintonists, neocons, McCain/Graham, fans of having a nuclear war in the Ukraine, WaPo-CIA News Service, The Daily Show, The New Yorker, Democrats.org, Corporate Feminists With Her, Bill Weinberg for the Jihad, etc., etc. All of whom also basically want Assange's corpse drawn and quartered and then the pieces quartered again. They seem to hate him more than Putin (which makes sense, since their "Putin" isn't even a person of this planet but a shadowy pulp-fiction villain). We were treated to that ludicrous "Grizzly Steppe," and its flat-out insulting successor with the 20 pages of RT reviews, and the Clapper testimony. (Clapper!) Every day it's RUSSIA SENDING TRUMP TO EAT YOUR CHILDREN OMG and, down on our own modest level, let's flood copy pasta to repurpose every single thread on R.I. so as to broadcast this message because some people still aren't getting it. This is fucked up in so many ways. Since the reasons that motherfucker is going to eat your children (but first the black and brown ones) are All-American, and one probably needs to understand that to stop it.

And then Wikileaks came into this cache, which again was already in the hands of hundreds or thousands of under/overworld miscreants thanks to the CIA, which compounded its original crime by incredibly reckless and self-destructive dissemination of the software (a.k.a. weapons). The leak is entirely a predictable consequence, is it not?

So if Assange chooses among other things to stress the fact that the presence of code that has already been distributed means absolutely nothing in terms of attributing the origin of any given exploit, he is correct. And if in making this point he mentions Russia specifically as an example of a country that could be spoofed as an attacker, no surprise, since Russia is what is on everyone's mind.

Even if "enemy" code is borrowed as a shortcut, it doesn't change that once borrowed, it can also be put to false-flag uses. Or, even if not put to such uses by the first borrower, it can still be used by most anyone (including be put to false-flag uses by entities other than UMBRAGE). However it arrives at a crime scene such as the DNC/Podesta phishing exploits, a piece of endlessly reproducible code originally associated with "Russia" (or whatever other suspect) can serve as fodder for misattribution by opportunistic DHS/FBI writers who proclaim that they are delivering the unanimous Voice-of-God verdict of 17 intelligence agencies, including the Coast Guard. Etc. Skepticism about that is good.

I refer above all to skepticism about the "election hacking" propaganda; the possible corrupt business collusion between Russian oligarchs and the Trump money-laundering, plunder and petty-scams "Organization" (so aptly named!) is a different matter, and of course totally believable. But let's see. It's more impressive than "Whitewater," anyway. Most anything that exposes and hopefully fucks up the national security state's blanket surveillance and control apparatus is good. Getting this out so that at least Samsung and Co. can take some measures is good. No matter who's president and no matter how imminent the next crime by the Kayfabe Hitler, this is a big story that should be published. At the same time, thousands of documents are provided with the invitation to figure shit out for yourself. Wikileaks hardly claims its comments are the last word.

Paradoxically, anything that slows down or brings down the Trumpish Beast is hard to argue against, except that once we have a first (open) coup, it never ends again.

.

[PufPuf93]

Good Jack.

I vote you to be the collective consciousness of the USA (at least on the days you are not grumpy)

[JackRiddler]

Thank you.

Cross-posting more of my own notes:

.

Both of the top-level party sides are employing McCarthyite tactics, kind of self-evidently. Obama was resisting the Clintonist/neocon push to arm the fucking Ukraine, and he did not, true? Yet the Russia-focused Democrats are now claiming the removal from the Republican platform of a plank calling for arms to the Ukraine is some kind of evidence that Trump is a Russian agent.

The McCarthyite tactics are also deployed by the established corporate media and Clintonists against anyone who suggests that maybe Trump's apparent desire for relatively friendlier relations with nuclear Russia is not the worst thing about him. WaPo fronted that positively rabid "PropOrNot" anonymous initiative to paint the likes of Truthdig as Russian agents. The New Yorker just wrote that the still completely unsubstantiated tales of "Russian election hacking" (endorsed by 17 agencies, including the Coast Guard!) are the biggest "attack" on the U.S. since 9/11. Fucking insane. Don't be blind to this. You don't have to shack up with McCain and GW Bush to fight against Trump!

It's obvious that Trump has always run a finance structure that is more criminal than most, and Russian oligarchs seem to be involved, but that does not yet make a Russian state plot. Even if it did, it still doesn't substantiate a Russian election fix. What's interesting about the ones supposedly most implicated in this plot (Carter, Manafort) is that they were forced out of the Trump campaign. The Sessions perjury allegation may qualify as that, but the idea that he didn't actually remember the meetings is far from incredible. How many ambassadors does a foreign relations committee member typically meet?

I'm more concerned that Trump and Sessions are spearheads of white nationalism and racism than that they may have colluded with Russia. Let the FBI investigate, sure. It's not like we have a say in this -- we should be organizing for resistance and expecting the inevitable collusion of Democratic leaders with this fucked-up proto-fascism soon enough, if the "Russia" maneuver fails (and I think so far it's served to strengthen Trump with his base).

Trump of course deploys non-stop McCarthyite tactics and worse. Everyone is categorized either as follower, yes-man or loyalist = real patriotic American, or as enemy, traitor, liar, un-American, "Nazi Germany," "fake news," etc. It's precisely because he is so fucking dangerous and worse than the Democrats that I favor ways of resistance and fighting that might actually work, ways that involve organizing and mass movements.

The Democrats had their fucking chance to deploy a few hundred lawyers during the Green-led recount, like the Republicans did to overwhelm it. That targeted the real election fixing: voter suppression, uncounted votes, etc. Didn't interest them. They'd rather not stir up too much thought about the actual rigging of the U.S. election system, a game in which they also play. They would rather play this game of seeking a Russian threat. They have stuck to the preposterous assertion that the presence of Podesta's e-mails online swung Michigan etc., and the evidence-free assertion that the Russian state as ordered by Putin stole the Podesta/DNC e-mails and fed them to Wikileaks.

.

[JackRiddler]

.

Just playing basically but I'm thinking the race is on for what becomes the defining event of 2017 in this story.

Which happens first?

1. Factional machinations from within the deep realm ("deep state" is misleading here insofar as it suggests one entity) cause a rotation of Trump out and Pence in.

2. Trump finally succeeds with one of his self-implosions, or receives a crippling punch by the release of some new tape or easily digested business collusion proof.

3. An enabling event appears, or is fashioned out of some found domestic outrage or declared crisis abroad, and this either a) succeeds or b) fails in fashioning some form of emergency sovereignty pretext for the regime.

4. The market crashes.

5. Some giant new outrage sparks a Tahrir Square. (A real one, not a Maidan, though some will want to spin it as the latter. Self-evidently the unlikeliest.)

6. International crisis not engineered by American-based interests engulfs the show.

Without going into an even more speculative discussion, I lean to 4 or 2. 3 is inherent in the agenda, but for all their gambling drive the regime is too poorly ensconced at this time.

.

.