By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the national address, President Trump admitted to journalists that he was instructed to give the speech by his chief of staff, Susie Wiles. The address, a rapid-fire delivery of falsehoods and attacks on his predecessor, came shortly after a Vanity Fair profile of Wiles was published. In the profile, Wiles made candid remarks, and it was speculated that Trump’s speech was orchestrated as damage control after the negative press surrounding her. While staff members praised the speech, sources indicated the speech was considered puzzling by allies.
Read the original article here
Trump Spills Real Reason for Manic Address When Cameras Stop
So, the buzz around the water cooler, or more accurately, the digital echo chamber, is about Trump’s recent address. The general consensus? Manic. Unhinged. Low-energy and high on… something. The real kicker, though, the thing everyone’s talking about, is what came out after the cameras shut off. And it seems the former president himself spilled the beans, admitting the whole thing wasn’t even his idea.
Apparently, it was his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, who orchestrated the whole charade. The claim is that she forced him to deliver the address to clean up a mess stemming from some article. The impression, from my point of view, is that it was a desperate attempt to appear “normal.” The thing is, this is an admission that could be used to paint a picture of weakness and a lack of control, something that’s always been used against him.
The address itself? A string of “mistruths” and attacks on his predecessor. While the word “lie” is more direct, the word “mistruth” is what’s used. The base apparently eats this up. It was all the same old talking points, the same rhetoric we’ve heard for years. The content was forgettable, the delivery was erratic, and the whole performance smacked of someone who was definitely not in control.
The aftermath, though, that’s where things get interesting. According to the claims, the fact that Trump wasn’t the driver of the speech is an open admission of weakness. It seems to have been a reaction to something negative. The fact that the entire administration is seemingly making one blunder after another certainly isn’t helping. There’s a clear sense that things are beginning to crack, and that the cracks are starting to show on a more personal level.
The media, they’re being criticized for not calling out the lies. There’s an expectation that the media would act as a check, but it seems to have failed. There’s the sense that if the media served a purpose, they would highlight the lies and provide value. The fact is that Trump refuses to acknowledge basic economic realities. It’s a disconnect that’s becoming increasingly apparent, and the consequences are being felt across the board.
The overall sentiment is one of disappointment. He was supposed to have an “it” factor, but he seems to have lost it. He comes off as weak, ineffective, and almost… begging for attention. The wheels are coming off. The reality is that Trump is losing his grip on power. He’s desperate, and it’s obvious.
The implication is that Susie Wiles is playing a game, and this address was part of it. It would be a game of damage control, and this would mean that Trump is too dense to understand what is happening, which is the most reasonable explanation. It’s hard to believe that this isn’t just a political gambit.
The whole situation reeks of desperation. The fact that he’s doing damage control in the first place, and that he’s acknowledging someone else’s actions, is telling. It’s a sign that the walls are closing in, and the cracks are widening. The question is, what happens next? Will this be the beginning of the end? Or will it be another chapter in this bizarre and seemingly never-ending saga?
It’s about himself. The entire presentation was a test of his doublethink. The man may be an idiot, and the people are cowards. If anything, the whole thing just highlights how much of a criminal he is. This whole address was supposed to be a response to something negative, a response to a situation that he wasn’t in control of.