Hi Nicholas, I appreciate your comments, but would offer that I’ve got access to more information that would suggest a greater role of the Mercers than your comments really account for. Am in the process of working with The NY Times to help make that info more readily available and understandable.
You are right that Pence’s network is separate from Bannon’s, and that’s kind of the point; the Mercer network is the most firmly entrenched and has more weight than any other.
I don’t think there needs to be much coordination between the “traditionalist” fronts; arguably there is only a minimal amount. But there is not “none,” and it doesn’t require maximal competence either.
Anyway, I am careful to couch this in terms that are decidedly not conspiracy-oriented; conspiracies rely on secrets. Everything I have said is backed up with reporting and data.
I think shock events represent an outsized risk, and the only downside to being circumspect is the risk of being wrong. But if the danger here is as great as it could be, then it is right to be alarmed and take action — within the bounds of available evidence.