If Trump’s White House Deep Scrote really cared about his country he would have quit and gone public - not left an under-siege President wondering if there is ANYONE he can still trust
By Piers Morgan
Daily Mail
September 6, 2018
There’s a great story about Ronny Jackson, the naval physician who served three US presidents including, until a few months ago, Donald Trump.
When he worked for President George W. Bush, Jackson earned himself an unusual nickname after accidentally cutting himself in the leg with a hoe at the president’s ranch in Texas.
Bush watched in astonishment as Jackson stitched himself up.
‘It’s OK,’ said Jackson, as reported by the Washington Post, ‘I’ve sewn myself up before.’
He then recounted a story of how he once stitched up one of his own testicles.
Bush was so impressed he thereafter called Jackson ‘Scrote’.
In my own country Britain, ‘Scrote’ is a popular term of vulgar abuse meaning a ‘worthless, despised or despicable person’ and is often applied to snivelling, treacherous little weasels that have performed acts of treacherous cowardice.
When a ‘Scrote’ does this under the self-protective clock of anonymity, he or she descends down to new levels of indefensible repulsiveness.
I have my own phrase for such a person: Deep Scrote.
One perfect example of a Deep Scrote would be whoever wrote the explosive anonymous op-ed piece in today’s New York Times that trashes President Trump.
It purports to be written by someone so deeply concerned about their country that they feel compelled to speak out.
Yet all it will do, as the author well knows, is massively exacerbate Trump’s already advanced state of distrustful paranoia and and thus worsen, not ease, the problems cited in the article.
What’s especially astonishing about this vitriolic outpouring of backstabbing bile is that it insists: ‘We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.’
Of course!
How silly of me not to realise that anonymously humiliating the serving President in such a publicly scathing and duplicitous manner was the act of someone who wants that President to succeed and believes his presidency is being far more successful and effective than his critics suggest?
Whoever penned this self-serving, rankly hypocritical garbage knew exactly what they were doing: they wanted to pile fuel on the flames already ignited by Bob Woodward’s incendiary new book dumping on the Trump presidency, which itself fed off earlier literary hatchet jobs by first Michael Wolff and then White House staffer (I still find it incomprehensible that such a ghastly piece of work ever earned that title) Omarosa Manigault Newman.
All of them have emphasised the same basic theme: Donald Trump’s a stupid, deranged, impetuous imbecile unfit to be President.
But at least those three authors all put their names to their words so they can be judged accordingly.
This op-ed author was too gutless even to do that, and surely whatever you think of Trump, this smacks of the most repugnant kind of sneaky treachery?
If you’re working for any presidential administration at a high level, and are actively defying the will of the President behind his back, and telling the outside world that’s what you’re doing, then you have no place in that administration. It’s as simple as that.
The honourable thing to do, indeed the ONLY thing to do, is to resign, and go public about your concerns.
For this op-ed writer to remain at their desk, pretending they still want the administration to succeed when they’ve so spectacularly damaged it is an outrageous abuse of position and a woeful dereliction of duty.
Now, I don’t pretend there aren’t things that should genuinely concern everyone about some of the revelations in Woodward’s book or even this op-ed, assuming they are true.
There is an erratic nature to Trump’s behaviour that is unsettling given the seriousness of the issues he now has to deal with on a daily basis.
Running the world’s most powerful country is not the same as running a real estate empire. And he persists in picking endless petty fights that eat up time and energy he would be far better served devoting to making America great again.
But a major part of Trump’s appeal when he won the election was precisely his shoot-from-the-hip style.
He doesn’t speak or behave like any conventional politician, and at 72 is too old and set in his ways to change now.
I would add that from my personal experience, he’s the same guy he’s always been.
I’ve interviewed Donald Trump four times since he announced he was running for president, including twice since he won. I’ve also spoken to him on numerous other occasions during that same period.
Not once has he ever seemed any different to the Donald Trump whom I’ve known, and had regular contact with, since 2006.
He’s also, almost uniquely for any president, been delivering on almost all the promises that he made in his campaign.
They may not be promises his enemies want him to keep, but they are ones he campaigned on; the economy is soaring, job numbers are great, illegal immigration is falling and North Korea’s stopped threatening to incinerate the United States.
These are all successes that get far less credit than they should get, such is the wall of negative noise surrounding him generated by media companies making a fortune from Trump-bashing agendas.
And they are successes I believe will almost certainly get him re-elected in 2020 if the economy continues to thrive, and the Mueller investigation doesn’t throw up any terminal curve-balls.
Of course, Trump has done some dumb things too – no least with that barbaric and thankfully short-lived child separation policy on the Southern border.
But the main frustration I have about his presidential style, which I know is one shared by many of his friends and loyal staffers, is his obstinate refusal to be more inclusive, preferring to engage in permanent mutually abusive war with his critics and political opponents.
As one person who’s worked with him for many years put it to me today: ‘He needs to remind the country this is not about him. It’s about all of us, and if we can come together as Americans, the world will watch. We will never agree on all our policies or politics, bit we all agree in our democratic values. He needs to show the country he can fight for all of them.’
Very wise words from someone who likes Trump and absolutely wants him to succeed.
But how will anyone persuade him to do that if he’s now having to read wrecking ball op-eds in a newspaper he hates written by one of his own high-ranking administration staffers?
‘President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader,’ says Deep Scrote at the start of his or her NYT diatribe.
Yes he is.
He is facing the reality that someone working for him in a senior capacity is now stitching him up – and not in a way Ronny Jackson would do to heal anything.
Shame on you, Deep Scrote. Whoever you are – you’re not a saviour, you’re a traitor.
No comments:
Post a Comment