The Sad, Pathetic Spectacle of John Kelly’s Critics

[Some Schmo]

The Sad, Pathetic Spectacle of John Kelly’s Critics
Trump’s sycophants want us to trust them over our own eyes and ears.


WHEN GEN. JOHN KELLY WENT PUBLIC about Trump’s praise for Hitler and his fears about a dictatorial second Trump term, he joined a growing list of former Trump officials ringing the alarm.

He also sparked what has become a pathetic if not predictable pattern, in which a chorus of Trump sycophants obediently rush forward to explain away the alarming revelation and impugn the witness’s credibility.

Here’s reliable Trump lickspittle Scott Jennings telling us that Kelly probably made the whole thing up and that the real Hitlers are on college campuses. Trump apologist ​​Ryan James Girdusky said, “I, honest to God, like most Americans, do not care about Gen. Kelly’s farewell tour.”

Brian Kilmeade on Fox and Friends said of Trump’s praise for Nazi generals: “I can absolutely see him go, ‘It'd be great to have German generals that actually do what we ask them to do,’ maybe not fully being cognizant of the third rail of German generals who were Nazis, or whatever.” (Not a parody.)

Trump confidante Mike Davis called Kelly “Gen. Christine Blasey Ford”—get it? Chris Sununu is unbothered: “We’ve heard a lot of extreme things from Donald Trump. With a guy like that, it’s kinda baked into the vote.” Sen. Bill Hagerty, on CNN, downplayed the entire revelation as a matter of personal dispute between two men. Kelly and Trump, he said, “were not a good fit.”

There is something deeply pernicious to this routine. These people want you to forget the cumulative weight of the accusations against Trump, especially when those accusations are coming from his own former employees—many of them high-ranking military officers. They’re doing so not because they don’t believe the accusations but because they know how harmful they could be.

You know how we know this? Because the claims of Kelly and others are backed up by what we’ve seen with our own eyes over the last nine years.

Are we supposed to be skeptical that Trump called soldiers “suckers” and “losers” when he said as much out loud about John McCain?

Are we supposed to be skeptical that he praised Hitler’s generals when he admires dictators, dined with white supremacist Nick Fuentes, calls people “vermin,” and talks about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of America?

Are we supposed to believe he bears no responsibility for January 6th when we all watched him summon a mob and sic it on the Capitol?

Are we supposed to believe that this is all about some personal tiff between Kelly and Trump when so many others have so many similar accounts?

• When Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, told us that “the American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution” on January 6th?

• When James Mattis said Trump’s “use of the presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice”?

• When Mark Esper said Trump was “unfit for office,” and put “himself before country”?

• When John Bolton warned that “this will be a retribution presidency”?

• When Ty Cobb said Trump’s “conduct and mere existence have hastened the demise of democracy and of the nation”?

• When Mark Milley called Trump “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person to this country”?

• When Bill Barr said Trump “shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office”?

I have another idea: Why don’t we accept the obvious truth that is staring us in the face? Trump is dangerous and unfit and all the responsible people who served in his last term have told us as much.

KELLY HAD BEEN RELUCTANT to speak publicly about his assessment of Trump. Previously, he said that speaking out against his former boss wouldn’t even get “a half a day’s bounce.” Trump’s apologists are trying to prove him right. We shouldn’t let them.

Kelly did the right thing. But it’s not enough. These messages need to reach people where they are, especially disengaged voters—not because they aren’t politically potent (they are) but because they fundamentally matter.

When someone of Kelly’s stature and proximity to Trump says the ex-president is a fascist and praised Hitler’s generals, it should send a great chill through our body politic. If this becomes a half-a-day story, it will be an indictment on all of us.

We are now in the home stretch. Millions of voters are—right this moment—making up their minds. This is the time when elections are won or lost. Those other former officials now have an obligation to do what Kelly has: come forward and offer their candid assessments of Trump.

They should do so not just to defend Kelly but to make a larger point: that we can, should, and must be honest about the threat Trump poses.

Trump’s defenders want us to doubt what we have seen with our own eyes and heard with our own ears. They want us to treat a White House chief of staff confirming that the former president praised Hitler and called members of the military “suckers and losers” as just another bit of campaign fodder—not evidence of something fundamentally rotten at the core of their movement. If we allow that to happen, it will be a stain on our politics akin to electing Trump himself.

I love me some Sarah Longwell (longtime Republican). I've never heard this point made so well.

[Kishkumen]

Anyone who thinks that the 40 members of Trump's cabinet and staff who do not support him because he is a danger to the US are outliers, shills for the Democrats, or lying, has been bamboozled. I am sad that they have been, but their failure to see the sun shining at noonday does not change the facts.

[Some Schmo]

Anyone who thinks that the 40 members of Trump's cabinet and staff who do not support him because he is a danger to the US are outliers, shills for the Democrats, or lying, has been bamboozled. I am sad that they have been, but their failure to see the sun shining at noonday does not change the facts.

It's just like doubting the similar stories of all the women Trump assaulted as... what? Mere coincidence?

It's become quite clear that pounding people with evidence over and over is useless. They're numb and would rather live in their stories.

[Moksha]

What good is transmitting first-hand experience when sticking one's head in the sand is an option?