Why Trump's current team of advisors actually might stick around (Cohn of Uncertainty)

As President Donald Trump makes deals with congressional Democrats and continues his national barnstorming campaign for tax reform, is the Trump cabinet and the overall White House team going to remain as is?

It's a fair question to ask as the Trump administration has often resembled a brutal set of "Survivor" episodes with key players getting voted off the island with regularity.

Just to recap, Reince Priebus is out, Michael Flynn is out, Sean Spicer is out, Steve Bannon is out, Anthony Scaramucci was briefly in and then quickly out, Sebastian Gorka is out, and... you get the idea.

Based on the events of the last three weeks or so, White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn seems next to go. His public criticism of President Trump's controversial response to the white supremacist march-tuned riot in Charlottesville, Virginia in August has reportedly piqued the president's anger. And when compared to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's defense of President Trump, Cohn's words clearly packed more of a punch. A Wall Street Journal report already says President Trump is less likely to nominate Cohn to be the next Federal Reserve chairman over this incident.

Yep, Cohn sure looks like he's toast. But so did Attorney General Jeff Sessions about six weeks ago. One of the reasons he stayed on became evident this week when Sessions took the point role in the Trump administration's plans to replace the DACA policy protecting the children of illegal immigrants from deportation. And just like Sessions, Cohn is playing a key role in pushing President Trump's tax reform efforts. Those efforts would take a hit if Cohn is ousted, and the president is ramping up the urgency on tax reform every day...

Ah! So this explains the "Cohn of Uncertainty" I've been reading so much about the past few days.

***WARNING***

CNBC = Counterfeit News & Bull Crap

Don’t believe these Lying Leftist Media outlets that proved themselves during the 2016 campaign to be operatives of the DNC and intentional liars. They are presumed to be lying and we should presume what they publish is a lie. The presumption can only be rebutted with the outlet providing clear and convincing evidence they are not lying.

Better is you as the poster put that in an obvious place preferably with a link or two as support, so the reader can quickly discern that within unreliable MSNBC there’s a reliable source, Jake Novak. Otherwise, FReeprs should just bypass the article because it is from a presumptively lying source.

Thanks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.