How "Strout's Law" in 1978 predicted the Trump political scandal of 2023

Old Men Laughing GIF by ABC Network


No comment on the other prophetic entries on the same page?

‘Our problems are mostly behind us, what we have to do now is fight the solutions’ is a great slogan for the modern republican party.

‘In war, victory goes to those armies whose leaders’ uniforms are the least impressive’ is a great summary of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

1 Like

Naom Chomsky books his speaking engagements far in advance. When asked what topic he’d speak on, he never knew what would be topical by the time the interview happened, so he would always pick, “The unrest in the Middle East.” Because there was always unrest there.
Also, the Trump insurrection scandal happened years ago. We are just now taking it to trial. Strout’s Law has to be pretty flexibly interpreted to make it fit.


These scandals all seem to have one thing in common…

It is my understanding that a deal was made with Iran to release the hostages after Holy Saint Reagan was inaugurated, just to embarass Carter.
HSR was giving aid & comfort to a foe; and Ollie North should’ve been courts-martialed for his role in circumventing Congress.
Instead, they are both still revered in some circles.

He got away with it because Nixon was pardoned & faced no real consequences.
The Presidential Pardon has been a useful tool for covering up GOP corruption ever since.
Besides, HSR had ‘plausible deniability’ and lots of worshipers; he also had layers of underlings who took the fall for him & dozens were convicted.
Then Old Man Bush pardoned a number of them when he became POTUS, so he was able to cover up his own involvement.

I don’t think there has been a single honorable GOPer to occupy the Oval Office since Eisenhower.

Paraphrasing P.J. O’Rourke:
“Republicans like to say that government doesn’t work. Then they get elected and prove it.”
They have, for decades, spewed the narrative that Government Is Bad [except when WE run it]; and they have whole ecosystems of El Rushbo wannabes parroting the same things… and worse.
No such infrastructure exists on the left.
The best we can hope for is for the GOP to continue to implode and for Dems to vote in droves next year. A wipeout will give some impetus to real change.
Uncle Joe had better give some serious consideration to massively expanding the SCOTUS so we can have a chance at undoing some of the fuckery that’s been done over the years…

“We have always been at war with Eastasia.”


Not the case. Iran Contra happened well after the election (from 81-86) and had nothing to do with Carter. It was selling arms to Iran in order to fund the contra’s war against the left-wing government, since Congress had not authorized funding for supporting the contras.

A further clarification - there were hostages involved, but it was those being held by Hezbollah, not the hostages in Tehran. And the goal was again, not to embarrass Carter, but to funnel money to the people that they wanted to funnel money to.


Mix-up, I think.
Iran-Contra happened a while after the election.
Before the election, team Reagan encouraged Iran to keep the hostages just a little longer, dangling a carrot, suggesting they might get a better deal that way.
So basically what team Nixon did before that election during the Paris peace talks, encouraging South Vietnam to drag things out for a bit in return for a better deal.


Like I said…


Again further illustrating how nonsensical the “50 years between political scandals” theory is. Not only were there multiple major scandals in between Nixon and Trump, there were multiple scandals just involving Reagan and Iran.


I’m guessing he actually secretly liked the Iranian regime, given their religious orientation, but circumstances put them on the “other” side of global politics at the time. After all, let’s not forget what Reagan said about the forerunners to the Taliban (the Mujahadin), that they were the “moral equivalent” to the founding fathers…


Yes, this is correct. Reagan should have been impeached, as well. Even as a kid, I knew this stunk and my parents were Reaganites, so I hadn’t yet formed my own opinions. Pretty sure North was a paid CNN commentator for a while, too. Absolutely reprehensible.


Au contraire, mon frere…
Someone who was there finally stepped forward to confirm long-held suspicions.

It’s more like it was a continuation of their original deal to release the hostages; HSR said he was going to continue the arms embargo against Iran that Carter started.
He was, of course, lying.

I am well aware of those attempts to circumvent the Boland Amendment, and watched the hearings that followed. Ollie North should’ve ended his days in Leavenworth…

Sure, there were hostages being held in Lebanon; that was the official explanation to justify the arms shipments and was entirely separate from the earlier swap.
Americans were still unhappy with Iran at the time and this added to the scandal.

1 Like

ahhh , perhaps , maybe ford ? in a relative , if not absolute , sense ?
sorta ?

1 Like

He pardoned Nixon.
That is unforgiveable.
It gave a green light to all manner of fuckery ever since, since it is, in essence, a Get Out of Jail Free card the GOP hasn’t hesitated to use ever since.
Ford was, at best, a Useful Idiot.


The KEY here is this:

the persistent rumor that the Reagan campaign had swung some sort of deal regarding the American hostages being held in Iran.

Which was not part of the Iran-Contra affair…

Over the next decade or so, the rumors never went away. They were supercharged when the Iran-Contra scandal broke; that plan seemed so bizarre that the only explanation seemed to be the missiles were a long-delayed quo for the original quid of Iran hanging onto the hostages until Reagan was elected.

From the NYT article…

None of that establishes whether Mr. Reagan knew about the trip, nor could Mr. Barnes say that Mr. Casey directed Mr. Connally to take the journey. Likewise, he does not know if the message transmitted to multiple Middle Eastern leaders got to the Iranians, much less whether it influenced their decision making. But Iran did hold the hostages until after the election, which Mr. Reagan won, and did not release them until minutes after noon on Jan. 20, 1981, when Mr. Carter left office.

Notice, no mention of the Contras… If Connally was indeed working independently of the Reagan administration, how would he have been able to broker a deal with the Contras for funding…

So, two different scandals, both involving Iran…


Vine Wtf GIF

Keiran Lee Reaction GIF


He liked puppies…
Ford, Gerald__puppies
… had a knack for slapstick comedy, and his administration handled the 1976 swine flu outbreak quite well, considering.

On a less facetious note, in absolute terms there was SALT II and the Helsinki Accords (good) but also stuff like NSDM 314 (WTF). To be fair, most of the messes he had to deal with he had inherited from Nixon. Which wasn’t just Vietnam. Then again, he was one of the men that had enabled Nixon to become President in the first place. Quite possibly he prevented Reagan becoming President four years sooner and those four years were critical regarding détente policy (and laying the groundwork for the stumbling stones that the Eastern bloc would trip over and smash itself to bits on later). And Reagan being in charge when the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan took place could have turned out needlessly exciting.
Anyway, he made close friends with Jimmy Carter after losing the election, so he can’t have been a total bastard.

In relative terms? Given the benchmark in presidential comparisons established between 2016 and 2020? No need to elaborate on this, I think.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.