Title: Chaos and Redemption: Inside the White House Ghost Town During the Post-Election Months
Subtitle: Rising Anxiety Surrounding Potential Involvement in a Future Trump Administration
Date: [Current Date]
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the White House became a deserted ghost town, as weary individuals distanced themselves from dealing with then-President Donald Trump and his detached view of reality regarding the election’s outcome. This exodus left only a handful of individuals who remained grounded in reality, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Vice President Mike Pence, amidst a few others like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell who embraced Trump’s claims. Testimonies have emerged, ranging from committee depositions to the most recent indictment, describing the desperate circumstances and discussions which ensued during this tumultuous period.
According to prosecutors, on January 6, at 7:01 p.m., in an attempt to avoid further chaos, Mr. Cipollone made a plea to Mr. Trump, urging him to withdraw his objections to the certification. However, Trump refused to yield. This revelation raises the question of whether there would be more individuals akin to Cipollone or Pence in a potential future Trump administration.
For many close to Trump, a second administration serves as an opportunity to overhaul the government, centralizing power around a stronger executive with unwavering loyalists serving beneath him. Journalist Jonathan Swan has extensively covered these plans, highlighting efforts such as subjecting the Federal Trade Commission to presidential control and using Schedule F to dismiss federal employees. Trump’s vision for a second term also includes retribution against those he perceives as adversaries.
This intensifies concerns about who would be involved in such an administration and the extent to which the American public would tolerate their actions. In Tim Miller’s book, “Why We Did It,” a debate with former White House communications official Alyssa Farah Griffin explores this issue. Griffin argues that governing continues under Trump, regardless of public sentiment. She warns about potential replacements, while Miller acknowledges the truth behind her statement. However, he counters, questioning the circular logic that justifies anything without considering the consequences. He emphasizes that past advisers had dissuaded Trump from taking extreme actions, such as invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests or firing Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
Amidst these circumstances, distinguishing between responsible influencers working to curb the worst impulses in private and those who passively watch or enable such behavior becomes increasingly challenging.
The experience of Vice President Mike Pence exemplifies the potential dangers for individuals and the public. In his book, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper reflects on Pence’s presence during meetings, describing him as a steady and normal influence. However, Esper admits uncertainty about the level of influence Pence had with Trump, given the vice president’s reluctance to speak up or openly disagree in front of others.
As the nation reflects on the events of the 2020 election aftermath, questions linger regarding the potential for a future Trump administration and the individuals it would attract. With tensions running high, the fragile balance between responsible governance and accommodating the whims of an unpredictable leader hangs in the balance, leaving the American public to ponder the limits of tolerance and accountability.