I’d rethink your logic if I were you. You’re saying he can’t be blamed for his picks because he had bad advisers. Either he had bad advisers because he picked bad advisers—or because someone “picked” his bad advisers for him.
There was that recent “Cleveland” doc circulating, which makes sense insofar as Manafort was brought in as Trump’s “fixer” for the convention and Manafort “fixed” that convention somehow.
There also was some documentation that came out with docs exonerating Trump on the Russian influence charge that referred to help from Israel. Given Kushner’s role quasi-running things and the reports of Kushner talking to Murdoch daily as his “mentor” from the time of the election, that too makes sense.
You’re right in that we don’t really know. But either Trump picked bad appointees and/or advisers on appointees—or they were picked for him. And if they were picked for him, then indeed he was on some level “controlled”.
Too old, and ‘sot in my ways.
See that I posted a reply to myself instead of you. LOL!!
Influenced maybe, controlled? Potato/potato?
OK. He is ultimately responsible for bad picks given to him by I do not know who. Sure he could have better advisors, but the republican party being what it is, not sure where he would have gotten other advisors.
If we cannot disagree on some point agreeably, adios.
“Ain’t gonna pick more nits with you today.”
You take care........pilgrim