Snowflake-in-Chief

New game in town

I’m not too sure who coined the term “snowflake,” but it does get a lot of use. I’ve seen it employed to identify liberal college students who resist having right wing speakers on their campus, and I’ve seen it used against students at public schools objecting to creationism and advocation for religion.  Taking an easy guess, I conclude a “snowflake” is something tender and delicate that melts at the slightest whiff of heat. It’s applied against individuals supposed to exhibit these properties. And what a marvel it is to see the concept so prominently enshrined.

Our current president came to office by way of a trail of derogation and slander of any number of individuals and institutions. Hillary Clinton, various Republican Party rivals, identifiable nationals (including Mexicans) and religions (Muslims)—all were fair game to this candidate in his lurch toward power. All the while he showed a soft underbelly: a remark less than laudatory brought a scathing rebuke. A direct verbal offense induced a scandalous tirade. Then the moving mouth came to power.

But before inauguration day there remained a troubling issue. Donald Trump easily trounced Democratic Party opponent Clinton by 77 electoral votes. Not so pleasantly for Donald Trump, Clinton garnered a clear majority of the popular vote; more than 2.8 million over the President. It was at this point the snowflake began to drip. What was proclaimed in advance to be a rigged election was now in fact a rigged election. The president-elect assured us that three million people voted illegally, for Clinton. More so, these were, in some versions, illegal voters. People not authorized to vote. Non-citizens. Whoop!

Nevertheless, Donald Trump became the president on  inauguration day. And the snow continued to melt. President Trump’s crowd was greater than any of President Obama’s, he told us. In fact, it was about the largest ever. Denials, with evidence, were trounced. Vigorously. The flake was feeling the heat.

More was to come, day by day, the President’s prevarications amplified to include any number of things. President Obama had ordered his phones at Trump Tower tapped. Nobody could find any evidence except for evidence that the President was making this up. He was lying.

And, almost monolithically the United States intelligence community came to the conclusion the Russian government had meddled in the 2017 election process, both by filching Democratic Party mail files and also by facilitating the dissemination of false “news” derogatory to the Clinton campaign. The conclusion by key intelligence officials was that Russian President Vladimir Putin was totally displeased with Clinton and wanted Donald Trump to win. The snowflake seethed.

President Trump’s previous and current financial ties to Russia and his perceived love affair with Russia and its president continued to gain the attention of the FBI. This was troubling to the Snowflake-in-Chief, and early in his tenure he supposedly asked FBI Director James Comey whether he could count on the Director’s loyalty. That is, loyalty to President Trump. Apparently the Director demurred. And the Snowflake-in-Chief seethed.

Last Tuesday it came to a head. The President of the United States announced abruptly that he was terminating the tenure of Director Comey (firing him), the reason being given: Director Comey’s mishandling of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email investigation. And that’s the story that was true, for that day. Which brings us to the present. See the picture above. That’s Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders giving out the revised story. Here is what she had to say. From the tape:

The President, over the last several months, lost confidence in Directory Comey, the DOJ [Department of Justice] lost confidence in Director Comey. Bipartisan members of Congress made it clear that they had lost confidence in Director Comey, and most importantly the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director.

If the Deputy Press Secretary seems familiar, it’s because you already know her father, Mike Huckabee, religious zealot and sometimes presidential candidate.

But that was Wednesday. Come Thursday, 11 May, additional clarification emerged. From CNN:

(CNN) — Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Thursday rejected assertions by the White House that FBI employees had lost faith in James Comey and that the bureau’s probe into Russian election meddling was one of its most minor concerns.

“I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity,” McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee.
He said Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, enjoyed “broad support within the FBI and still does to this day.” He added, “The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey.”

So, from where did all this rank and file disenchantment spring? I’m guessing from the fevered brain of a Snowflake-in-Chief. Sanders was asked. From the video:

Sanders: …from countless members of the FBI, that [sic] are grateful and thankful for the President’s decision.

When pressed to elaborate on the term “countless,” Sanders went doodle bug, saying she didn’t want to get into a numbers game. She cited emails, text messages. Then she nailed it by saying she had heard from a “large”number of individuals.

Time to digress. Diagnose the word “countless.” I am a mathematician (college diploma on request), and I have a definition for “countless.” The set of rational numbers is countable. Infinite, but still countable. To get to “countless” you have to go to the set of real numbers. That set is uncountable. Real numbers are countless. Surely Secretary Sanders does not mean to assert the number of FBI employees thankful for President Trump’s firing of Directory Comey is infinite, because I can guarantee the number of FBI employees, a superset of the number who are glad, is finite. So, what does “countless” mean to Secretary Sanders? I have an interpretation.

When Deputy White House Press Secretary Sanders says there are countless FBI employees thankful that President Trump fired Director Comey, she means, “I’m not going to tell you.” This is the way of all people making stuff up. Except that the late Senator Joe McCarthy, no friend of the truth, actually gave us a number. He asserted there were “fifty-seven card-carrying Communists” working for the State Department. It became a running  joke, one that was recapitulated in a hit movie.

To be sure, people having inside experience with the FBI will tell you there were some dissatisfied with their director, but it has become apparent that Sanders’ explanation is mere cover for a Snowflake-in-Chief. President Trump’s subsequent comments on the matter have made it apparent his real concern was that Director Comey refused to swear personal loyalty and also refused to back off the agency’s investigation into the Russian connection. But, what is it for me to worry about? I already speak Russian.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Snowflake-in-Chief

  1. Pingback: Someone left the cake out in the rain. | Skeptical Analysis

  2. Pingback: Snowflake-in-Chief | Skeptical Analysis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s