President Trump has a long history of action that almost all media and political opposition seem to ignore when trying to attack him. Every effort to “get” Trump fails due to a key flaw in their approach; a flaw they can never overcome.
President Trump approaches his opposition in politics similarly to his opposition in business, with one key and consequential difference. In business opponents challenge goals based on financial ends; in politics opponents challenge based on intent or motive.
The reason no attacks stick to Trump as a candidate, or now to Trump as a president, is because his motives and intents are transparently good. He genuinely wants to see America Great Again. Period. There’s no self-interest, benefit or self-advancement within President Trump’s objective; as a consequence the ‘motive’ or ‘intent’ to attack Trump on the political angle consistently fails.
It’s a weird and disconcerting dynamic for career politicians to face an opponent who is not looking to advance his ‘political career’. However, conversely, understanding this dynamic politician Trump consistently hits at his opposition specifically on the motive and intent angle.
All of the daily accusations against Trump, as presented by his political opposition and media, are based on the false premise that President Trump is carrying a malicious intent. His political opposition seem to miss this structural flaw in their argument because they are not familiar with facing a political opponent who is absent of career self-interest, influence or power.
The factual reality that Trump harbors no malicious disposition, evidences itself, and inevitably means all the attacks go nowhere. In every single manufactured media controversy President Trump is inherently never in a position where he is personally gaining from the details within the controversy du jour.
This factual and uniquely non-political disposition means there is an inherent inoculation from accusations of illegal or unethical action. The only distinction between each “controversy” is the time it takes this inherent reality to surface. The story of Mike Flynn is another prime example. There is no attempt to influence FBI Director James Comey, and specifically the accusation in that regard contains no benefit to President Trump.
At worst, President Trump is guilty of expressing a favorable personal opinion of General Flynn. The absence of malicious intent and motive, and the absence of personal benefit, lends to a natural conclusion of a nothingburger…. Just wait for it, you’ll see.
Ironically, the ‘intent and motive’ angle was clearly evident in Hillary Clinton’s decision to hide her communication as a public official. The FBI claimed the absence of their ability to prove intent or motive as the reason for not prosecuting her. Exactly the opposite is true with the Clinton example. There was voluminous evidence proving to a certainty that specific action was taken to hide, deceive, and even to impede investigation. Every effort Platt River Network’s Paul Combetta (aka. “stonetear”) took was jaw-dropping evidence in that regard (remember, he took the fifth).
Political Trump uses this “intent” and “motive” approach to draw attention to his opponents, and it is structurally successful because the opposition is, FACTUALLY, always holding a motive.
When political Trump gets to the point where he’s ready to crush is opposition he simply points out their obvious motive and intent; it becomes common sense for the observing public to see it. Trump’s opposition cannot do the same.
The international leadership who have met Trump, particularly Theresa May (UK), King Abdullah III (Jordan), Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Egypt), and even President Xi Jinping (China) and President Abbas (PA), have all noted this dynamic publicly to their respective domestic audiences. President Trump can uniquely accomplish things because President Trump doesn’t have any ulterior motive or agenda other than to succeed in good things.
Trump’s political ‘Robert-The-Bruce’ opposition, the Republicans, would be well counseled to pay attention to this dynamic. Obviously the non-agenda altruistic approach is 180° divergent from their entire career frame-of-political-reference; but it is still inherently true.