By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent events have highlighted a pattern of apparent ignorance from the president regarding crucial policy decisions and the actions of his own administration. Trump has repeatedly responded to direct questions about pardons, foreign policy, and administrative actions with “I don’t know.” This pattern of non-answers extends to topics ranging from military aid and student visa policies to even basic constitutional concepts. The frequency of these instances raises questions about the president’s knowledge and involvement in the very matters he is responsible for overseeing.
Read the original article here
President Bystander stumped when asked about a pardon he signed hours earlier. It’s a surreal scenario, isn’t it? The leader of the free world, ostensibly in charge, completely flummoxed when confronted about a decision he’d personally authorized. The sheer audacity of it is almost comical, yet the implications are anything but. The situation smacks of a carefully constructed facade, a performance designed to deflect and obfuscate. It’s a common tactic, isn’t it? When cornered, resort to the familiar: pretend ignorance. Claim you don’t know, you’re not aware, you weren’t involved. It’s a way to buy time, to stall, to avoid having to actually answer the question and potentially reveal the truth. It’s a masterclass in deflection, a tactic employed by someone well-versed in the art of avoiding accountability.
The automatic assumption is that there’s a disconnect, a significant one. Either the president is woefully uninformed, completely out of the loop on matters of state, or something more sinister is at play. Could it be a case of the “autopen,” where his signature is simply a rubber stamp, completely divorced from any understanding or consideration of the actual policy? Or perhaps it’s a more troubling scenario: a deliberate, calculated play for plausible deniability. “I don’t know,” he says. “I wasn’t involved.” It’s a convenient phrase, a shield against scrutiny.
The narrative shifts from “President in command” to “President as a puppet.” It’s difficult not to imagine the scenario where aides and advisors are pulling the strings. They present him with decisions, and he signs them, oblivious to the details. The “goons” running the country, as someone aptly put it, dictating the course of action while the president remains comfortably in the dark. This is a terrifying prospect, a scenario where power is concentrated in the hands of a select few, shielded from public scrutiny and accountability. The question becomes: Who *is* actually in charge?
Consider the ease with which this could be orchestrated. Imagine shadowy figures, individuals like Stephen Miller, presenting documents, whispering instructions, and ensuring the president remains blissfully unaware. He’s the figurehead, the smiling face, the one who takes the blame. They, on the other hand, are free to operate in the shadows, pursuing their own agendas, enriching themselves, and reshaping the country in their image. It’s a terrifying vision, a perversion of the democratic process.
And then there’s the question of motivation. Why would someone choose this path? Is it simply incompetence, a profound lack of understanding? Or is it something far more sinister? Could it be corruption, a quid-pro-quo arrangement where pardons are granted in exchange for favors, financial gain, or political leverage? The mere suspicion of such activity undermines the very foundations of justice and the rule of law. It suggests that the highest office in the land is for sale, that decisions are being made not in the public interest, but in the interest of the few, the powerful, and the corrupt.
The “I don’t know” defense is a convenient one, but it’s ultimately unsustainable. It invites further scrutiny, more questions, and a deeper dive into the murky depths of the administration’s actions. What’s even more disturbing is the notion that this behavior is almost expected. A “go-to response” that’s used to buy time, a phrase repeated so often that it’s become a symbol of incompetence and deception. It’s a sign of someone accustomed to operating outside the boundaries of accountability, someone who believes they are above the law.
The incident highlights a critical point: The Constitution. The oath of office, the solemn promise to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution of the United States. This oath, etched in stone, stands in stark contrast to the casual dismissal, the convenient ignorance. How can one uphold the Constitution while simultaneously admitting a lack of knowledge regarding decisions of utmost importance? It’s a contradiction, a fundamental breach of trust.
This entire situation begs the question: What’s next? More of the same, most likely. The cycle of denial, deflection, and deception will probably continue. The media coverage will focus on the scandal du jour, quickly shifting attention elsewhere as soon as the next headline arises. The cycle will repeat until the public’s attention fades, or until a greater force comes in to remove power from the hands of those in charge.
The “President Autopardon,” as someone called it, speaks volumes. It’s not just an autopen, or dementia, but an orchestrated performance, a game of smoke and mirrors. The question is, can the people see through it? Will they demand accountability, or will they allow the puppeteers to continue their work in the shadows? The answer will determine the future of this country.