Trump 18: Info to Russia, With Love

[Rachel333]

"Everybody -- even my enemies -- has said, 'There is no collusion.'"

Suuure

[GreyhoundFan]

1 minute ago, Rachel333 said:

He's really rambling. I don't even remember what the question was now.

I don't think he does either. Of course, he probably didn't understand it.

[Rachel333]

President Santos said that he's not in a position to give advice to Trump and that Trump can take care of himself. Trump's face was funny during that--he obviously liked that answer.

[Destiny]

21 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

"Everybody -- even my enemies -- has said, 'There is no collusion.'"
Suuure

Citation required. Again. I'll take any format, but citations please.

Signed,
Destiny, who is an everybody

[GreyhoundFan]

 

 

He can't stop fidgeting every time Santos speaks.

 

 

He cut it off without taking many questions. He ripped out his earpiece and said "thank you" and walked off stage.

 

Hmmm: "Trump: Joe Lieberman is top contender for new FBI director"

Spoiler

President Trump said Thursday that Joe Lieberman was his top choice to become FBI director, filling the slot left open after Trump fired James B. Comey, his previous FBI head, last week.

Trump, speaking to a group of television anchors at the White House Thursday, said that Lieberman, the former senator from Connecticut and Democratic vice presidential nominee, is his leading candidate to run the agency.

The president also told the group that he was close to a decision, an assertion he repeated later at a joint appearance with President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia.

“We're very close to an FBI director,” Trump told reporters as he posed for photos with Santos in the Oval Office, saying his choice would be announced soon.

Some senators on Capitol Hill Thursday were expressing skepticism Thursday about choosing a politician to lead the independent investigations bureau.

Lieberman, originally a Democrat and later an independent, was not always Trump's top pick, either. Previously, the president had expressed interest in Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) for the post. Cornyn took himself out of the running, saying he believed he could best serve the president by remaining in the Senate.

 

[Destiny]

He cut it off without taking many questions. He ripped out his earpiece and said "thank you" and walked off stage.

So what you are saying is he acted like an unprofessional toddler instead of a president. Again. Do I have the jist?

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, Destiny said:

So what you are saying is he acted like an unprofessional toddler instead of a president. Again. Do I have the jist?

Pretty much. Par for the freaking course.

 

Honestly, I don't know much about Santos, but he was calm and gave thoughtful answers to the questions. TT fidgeted and fussed and interrupted reporters. Just as usual.

 

 

[formergothardite]

His hair seems to be falling out in clumps on the side. 

Holy shit I can't believe he actually said the guy gave a long, long answer. That wasn't even that fucking long! 

[GreyhoundFan]

14 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

His hair seems to be falling out in clumps on the side. 

Holy shit I can't believe he actually said the guy gave a long, long answer. That wasn't even that fucking long! 

He is such a prick to actual leaders.

 

 

Interesting analysis: "Comey prepared extensively for his conversations with Trump"

Spoiler

FBI Director James B. Comey prepared extensively for his discussions with President Trump, out of concern that the president was unlikely to respect the legal and ethical boundaries governing their respective roles, according to associates of the now-fired FBI chief.

The associates recounted how worried Comey was about meeting with Trump and recalled conversations in which they brainstormed how to handle moments in which the president asked for details of an investigation.

One associate referred to Comey’s preparation as a kind of “murder board’’ — a phrase used to describe a committee of questioners that hurl tough questions at someone as practice for a difficult oral examination.

“He was pretty insistent that he would have to find a way to politically not answer it,” recalled one associate. “He was confident that he was not going to sacrifice the independence of the investigation, or his own moral compass, but at the same time, he would not try to purposely inflame his commander in chief.”

The president abruptly fired Comey last week, raising questions about whether he was attempting to interfere in the ongoing FBI probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russian operatives seeking to meddle in last year’s presidential election.

Comey was very apprehensive heading into a dinner with the president in late January, because of his previous encounters with Trump during the transition and immediately after the inauguration, according to one associate. Comey felt as if Trump did not understand or did not like the FBI director’s independence and was trying to get Comey to bend the rules for him, the associate said.

White House officials have disputed the accuracy of a memo Comey wrote describing what was said at the January dinner. In it, associates said, Comey described an effort by the president to get him to drop the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

In his preparation for meeting Trump, Comey made clear to associates that he wanted to be responsive to the president’s questions while declining to discuss sensitive subjects “in a manner that did not come across as a slap in the face,’’ said the associate, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The FBI declined to comment, and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Before going to the dinner, Comey practiced Trump’s likely questions and his answers with a small group of his most trusted confidants, the associates said, in part to ensure he did not give Trump any ammunition to use against him later.

The director did not take notes during the dinner with the president, but there were times, one associate recalled, when after meeting with Trump, Comey started writing notes as soon as he got into a car, “to make sure he could accurately record what was said.’’

Another associate said the notes of the January dinner conversation contained very nuanced quotes from the president and a high level of detail.

 

[JMarie]

9 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Yep, poor widdle pwesidunce...

 

 

The comments on this tweet are awesome!

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein knew before he wrote his controversial memo that Comey would be fired"

Spoiler

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein told the full Senate he knew that former Director James B. Comey would be fired before he wrote his controversial memo that the White House initially used as justification for President Trump firing the FBI director.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said that Rosenstein told the senators that he knew on Monday, the day before Comey was fired, that Trump was going to fire him. He also told them that he was not pressured into writing his memo.

“He learned the president’s decision to fire him and then he wrote his memo with his rationale,” Durbin said.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a former prosecutor, said she would reserve judgment about Rosenstein’s comments to the senators because members of Congress still haven’t seen all of the relevant documents. She added that Rosenstein “was very careful about not going into any details surrounding the removal of Comey because he wants to give Robert Mueller the opportunity to make an independent decision” about how to proceed.

The day after Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate possible coordination between Trump’s associates and Russian officials, he appeared before the Senate on Thursday afternoon to brief senators in a closed session.

Rosenstein received support from the Senate a month ago when he was confirmed by a vote of 94 to 6 to be the Justice Department’s second-highest-ranking official. But his reputation has come under fierce attack in the past week over a memo he wrote about James B. Comey that the White House initially used as a justification for Trump to fire the FBI director.

Since Comey’s firing on May 9, the calls for Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel have intensified, especially from Democratic lawmakers who believe he can longer be impartial in the Russia investigation, given his role in the firing. Rosenstein was put in charge of the Russia investigation as soon as he was confirmed because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself after The Washington Post revealed contacts he had with the Russian ambassador that he had not reported when asked about it during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Rosenstein’s 2:30 p.m. briefing with the Senate was scheduled before he announced late Wednesday that he was appointing Robert S. Mueller III, a former prosecutor who served as FBI director from 2001 to 2013, to take over the Russia investigation as special counsel.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism, said that he believes that Rosenstein’s decisions to appoint a special counsel curtails the ability of Congress to call people who may be witnesses in the federal investigation.

“I never got to ask my questions specifically about that but the takeaway I have is that everything he said was that you need to treat this investigation as if it will be a criminal investigation,” Graham said. “I think the biggest legal challenge seems to be that Mr. Mueller’s going to proceed forth with the idea of a criminal investigation not a counterintelligence investigation.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who just removed himself from consideration to be the next FBI director, said that senators are taking the federal investigation “enormously seriously.”

“Clearly Russia was very much involved in trying to undermine public confidence in our elections,” Cornyn said. “I don’t think it’s in anybody’s interested to delay or impede or impair this investigation in any way. We need to be focused on what our role is. We are not the FBI or the Department of Justice. We are conducting oversight.”

When Rosenstein made his decision to appoint a special prosecutor, he did not notify White House counsel Donald McGahn of the appointment until 5:30 p.m., the same time Justice Department officials were briefing reporters and 30 minutes before the news became public.

Trump tweeted early Thursday that he was the victim of a “witch hunt” and expressed anger that a special counsel hadn’t ever been appointed to investigate Hillary Clinton or former president Barack Obama for their “illegal acts.”

“With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special councel [sic] appointed!” Trump tweeted. “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!”

Rosenstein met with all U.S. senators in one of the most protected rooms on Capitol Hill, “the SCIF,” or a sensitive compartmented information facility. The below-ground facilities in the Capitol Visitors Center — one on the House side, one on the Senate side — are primarily used by national security committees to receive updates on classified or sensitive matters from top government officials, who regularly visit the Capitol to meet with lawmakers. One part of the Senate SCIF is large enough to hold all 100 senators, a senior aide said.

After the Senate briefing was announced Monday by a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that he hoped senators on both sides of the aisle would “use this opportunity to seek the full truth” about Comey’s firing.

But why Rosenstein’s briefing needed to happen in a room designed for classified briefings is still unclear. McConnell aides wouldn’t say whether Rosenstein requested that the briefing be classified or whether he has told Senate leaders that he has classified information to share.

Rosenstein may have been asked about his decision to open an independent investigation, as well as the circumstances surrounding the memo he wrote about Comey.

In the memo, Rosenstein wrote that the FBI director had violated long-standing Justice Department practices in his handling of the bureau’s investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. Principal deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pointed to Rosenstein’s memo as the reason Trump fired Comey, saying that Comey had committed “atrocities” in overseeing the FBI’s investigation of Clinton.

But, according to a person close to the White House, Rosenstein was upset about the narrative that emerged from the White House the evening of May 9. That telling cast Rosenstein as the prime person behind the decision to fire Comey, even though Trump later stated that he already had decided to termination the director before asking Rosenstein for the memo. Rosenstein threatened to resign from the Justice Department because of the explanation that White House officials were giving reporters about the firing, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

By May 10, White House officials had backed off blaming Rosenstein for the firing and the next day, Trump contradicted his own officials and told NBC News that the decision to fire Comey was his alone and that he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he made it.

Rosenstein may have blunted some of the criticism of his actions in the past week with his announcement Wednesday that he had appointed a special counsel. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers praised Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller to oversee the investigation of Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election and possibly whether the president or anyone at the White House has interfered with the inquiry.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, cheered Rosenstein’s choice on Twitter, writing of Mueller: “Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted.”

 

 

[JMarie]

5 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Even Sandra Lee's cocktails aren't strong enough for me to watch Hannity. 

 

I kind of miss her amaretto- peppermint schnapps-grapefruit juice cocktails, served in a glass that matches her tablescape.

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting op-ed about impeachment: "Impeachment’s Political Heart"

Spoiler

...

 

The simmering talk of impeachment swirling around President Trump largely concerns whether he committed a crime by asking James Comey, when he was still the director of the F.B.I., to end an investigation of Michael T. Flynn, the onetime national security adviser. From the perspective of criminal law, the resulting questions, which pertain mainly to the president’s intent in making the request, are inescapable. From the perspective of the decidedly political act of impeachment, they are irrelevant. The purpose of impeachment is not punitive. It is prophylactic.

Criminal law looks backward toward offenses committed. The object of impeachment is not to exact vengeance. It is to protect the public against future acts of recklessness or abuse. Consequently, the issue in deciding whether Mr. Trump is liable to impeachment is less what happened in the Oval Office between him and Mr. Comey than what those events say about what will happen in similar situations in the future. That is not a case for casual impeachment. On the contrary, since it is harder to predict future acts than to prove what has already occurred, such a standard may be harder to meet.

Our tendency to read the impeachment power in an overly legalistic way, which is ratified by 230 years of excessive timidity about its use, obscures the political rather than juridical nature of the device. The Constitution applies presidential impeachment to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The famous latter phrase does not refer to offenses like burglary on the one hand or loitering on the other. If it did, impeachment would be available for casual transgressions, which no framer of the Constitution intended.

The phrase dates in American constitutionalism to the founder George Mason’s proposal to make the president liable to impeachment not just for treason and bribery — the original formulation at the Constitutional Convention — but also for what he called “maladministration.” His fellow framer James Madison objected to the vagueness of the term, so Mason substituted “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That phrase, in turn, is traceable to the British legal commentator William Blackstone, a contemporary who was revered in colonial America, who applied it to the “mal-administration of high officers,” among other things.

Mason’s intent was clearly to delineate a political category, something Alexander Hamilton — who did not shrink in the defense of executive power — recognized in Federalist 65, which says that impeachment applied to offenses “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they related chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

The victim Hamilton identified — “the society itself” — defined the nature of the offense. Earlier, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Madison had indicated the same understanding. Note, crucially, the purpose for which he said impeachment should be available: “Mr. Madison thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.”

The tendency to read “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” too literally is one reason the 25th amendment, which treats presidential incapacity as though it requires a special constitutional mechanism when in fact one was already in place, became necessary. It is also why, in a development that surely would have surprised Hamilton and Madison alike, the republic has managed 23 decades without a successful impeachment and conviction, the resignation of President Richard Nixon notwithstanding.

The political nature of the impeachment authority does not mean it is merely a contest over power. Still less is it supposed to rehash electoral disputes. Instead, the point is that because its purpose is to “defend the community” rather than to punish an individual, the standards of a criminal trial do not apply. The Constitution’s specification that prosecuting an individual for an act for which he or she was impeached does not constitute double jeopardy reinforces this understanding.

The prophylactic rather than punitive character of the impeachment power still, of course, requires an offense. But the offense indicates a pattern on the basis of which future behavior can be predicted. The idea is not to humiliate the president or to cause him to suffer by the loss of his office. It is to protect the public against his negligence or abuse.

In this sense, it does not matter whether Mr. Trump explicitly intended to obstruct justice when he reportedly attempted to cajole Mr. Comey. The determination Congress must make is what its level of confidence is that Mr. Trump can be trusted not to abuse the levers of power in similar ways if he continues to hold them. On another front, there is little question that he committed no crime when he leaked classified information to the Russian ambassador. But that, too, is not the question impeachment poses. The issue is whether Madison’s community and Hamilton’s society need to be defended against similar behavior in the future.

There are reasonable arguments to be made that despite all the controversies, the president can demonstrate the discipline his office requires. Others may assert that the acts of which he is accused did not occur, did not occur the way they were reported, or did not constitute high crimes or misdemeanors if they did occur.

The evidence should be carefully gathered, a process in which Robert S. Mueller III, acting as special counsel, will help considerably. But Mr. Mueller is no substitute for Congress’s independent responsibilities of investigation and sober evaluation. The question is by what standards they should conduct this work, and that question provides an opportunity to correct the mistaken assumption according to which presidents can forfeit the public trust only by committing what the law recognizes as a crime. That is a poor bar for a mature republic to set. It is not the one a newborn republic established.

And that is why the idea that the conversation about impeachment is simply a political persecution of a man who is technically innocent of a literal crime not only jumps the investigatory gun. It misses the constitutional point.

 

[nvmbr02]

Because it is totally normal to stay in contact with someone you fire for working for a foreign government and lying on their security clearance while they are being investigated. Seriously. WTF.

As investigators circled Flynn, he got a message from Trump: Stay strong

[AuntK]

I've been reading on FJ about Louise Mensch and her predictions and have started following her on Twitter. While I would love for her predictions to be correct, I have noted a lot of them are not.  I am reserving judgment, but there seems to be a building wave of criticism on Twitter, primarily because it is alleged that she is a British conservative, employee of Rupert Murdoch, and a friend of Ivanka Trump. Don't know if this is true, but she is definitely controversial!

[Rachel333]

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, JMarie said:

I kind of miss her amaretto- peppermint schnapps-grapefruit juice cocktails, served in a glass that matches her tablescape.

  For old times' sake:

Spoiler

 

[JMarie]

34 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

  For old times' sake:

  Hide contents

 

OMG!  Thanks so much for this!  I have loads of ratty old fringe and I wasn't sure what to do with it.

[onekidanddone]

Thank you all for the bull shit hour press conference.  I really have nothing to say that hasn't be said all ready. What freaking walking disaster. There is no doubt left that he believes all his lies. He has no idea how he looks to others. Maybe he should ask for a refund from the school his son will be attending in the fall. 

[GreyhoundFan]

11 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Thank you all for the bull shit hour press conference.  I really have nothing to say that hasn't be said all ready. What freaking walking disaster. There is no doubt left that he believes all his lies. He has no idea how he looks to others. Maybe he should ask for a refund from the school his son will be attending in the fall. 

Maybe he should trade places with Barron, who is probably more educated and more mature than daddy dearest. I don't think a 10-year-old could do a worse job of running things than the TT has done thus far.

[GreyhoundFan]

I liked this opinion piece: "Trump can’t stop talking about the Russia probe — even if continuing might hurt him". A couple of choice parts:

Quote

President Trump’s silence lasted just over 12 hours. Then, he let it all out.

The appointment of a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between his campaign and Russia was the “single greatest witch hunt in American history,” he tweeted.

Hours later, during a news conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Trump revisited the topic.

“I think it’s totally ridiculous. Everybody thinks so,” Trump said when asked about the appointment. “Everybody, even my enemies, have said there is no collusion.”

The comments underscore Trump’s seemingly unstoppable drive to combat an investigation that has dogged him since his first day in office — even if it prolongs the controversy and potentially puts him at greater legal risk.

...

It is amazing that it took him a whole 12 hours to start whining on Twitter.

 

Quote

...

A senior White House official said the president has been presented with options for retaining outside counsel in the case.

“The whole Comey situation, that’s a different ballgame,” said Alan I. Baron, who has served as special counsel to the House in impeachment proceedings against four federal judges. “It could well be treated as criminal interference into an investigation. Obstruction of justice.”

Trump’s propensity to discuss the case and Comey’s firing have only introduced more complications. In an interview days after firing Comey, Trump said that he was thinking of the Russia probe as he decided to do it.

In all, Baron said, while Trump maintains his First Amendment rights to free speech, most attorneys would strongly advise their clients against speaking about an ongoing case involving the clients or their associates.

“He would be a difficult client to serve,” Baron said. “If I’m representing somebody, you don’t say anything to anybody without talking to me first. That’s my first rule.

“If you can’t control yourself, just tell me where to send the flowers,” he added.

...

At the moment, he can sent them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20500

 

Quote

...

“Nixon was much more circumspect than Donald Trump and, frankly, much more aware of what his own legal exposure was,” said Ken Hughes, a scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “I was stunned when President Trump suggested that he might have tapes of his meetings with director Comey, because those would become the subject of subpoenas. They would be seen as evidence.”

“Nixon never publicly threatened people with his tapes, because he knew it would backfire on him,” said Hughes, whose areas of expertise include secret U.S. presidential recordings.

Publicly, according to Hughes, Nixon pledged cooperation with investigators even while he resisted handing over the tapes and privately fumed about efforts to sabotage his administration.

Trump has aired such grievances publicly on a nearly weekly basis, arguing that he is being treated unfairly by the news media and by his Democratic opponents.

...

Nixon, unlike the TT, wasn't an idiot. He did some horrible things, but he actually had more than two brain cells rattling around his cranium.

 

Quote

...

Meanwhile, White House aides look hopefully toward the president’s upcoming foreign trip, which might help them shift the agenda back to firmer ground. But with nearly 30 million Twitter followers at his fingertips, Trump has resisted giving up his ability to battle the news media and investigators through a tool that he believes allows him to cut through the filter of the mainstream media.

“Donald Trump should start every morning with a tweet about what he is doing that day to help working-class Americans,” said Republican strategist Alex Conant. “Instead, his morning tweets make it clear how much the Russia story is distracting him and his White House.”

Yeah, that won't happen.

[onekidanddone]

I read this as well.  Gave me a fucking head ache in my eye. I can't phantom who would want to be his lawyer.  Oy! He would be such a nightmare of a client.  I'm surprised he doesn't just represent himself, because he knows more about all the laws than anybody.  It really is tremendous, in the sense that it is wonderfully tremendous. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump thinks he’s under attack. That’s very dangerous.". The end is especially good:

Quote

...

I share in the confidence expressed by Democrats and Republicans alike that Mueller will do a fair and thorough job — and that FBI investigators, reportedly angry at the way Trump treated Comey, will look under every single rock. If there was collusion by the Trump campaign, I believe it will be found. But even if clear and convincing evidence of such wrongdoing exists, it will take time to unearth.

Meanwhile, Trump remains president. He has access to the nation’s most closely held secrets but cannot be trusted to safeguard them. He runs the White House like a family business, valuing loyalty over experience or expertise. He has no real grasp of policy, foreign or domestic. He feels himself under attack. Four months into his term, he brags to White House visitors about how he won the election. And there’s not another one until 2020.

I have little doubt that there will be a grain of sand unturned.

 

And, for a little levity, Alexandra Petri's latest: "Is Donald Trump a witch?"

Spoiler

No politician in history has ever suffered more than President Trump. Just as he told the graduates of the Coast Guard (“No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly.”) and continues to tweet, nobody has ever been so maligned.

...

He is right about this, as he has so often been right about history before.

Other politicians in American history have suffered, at best, minor unpleasantnesses. James Garfield got a fat, lazy, Monday-hating cat named after him, which was a pretty cruel thing, but other than that nothing really bad occurred.

John F. Kennedy had to listen to Marilyn Monroe sing, and everyone knows that she was quite hefty and could not sing as well as a Miss USA contestant. But his life was basically fine, even if Ted Cruz’s dad did conspire to give him a very unpleasant surprise during a visit to Dallas.

Abraham Lincoln never had to suffer like this, except possibly one time when actor John Wilkes Booth was very rude and disruptive while Lincoln was trying to enjoy a play.

Joe McCarthy did a witch hunt, but this was only fair because he was being cruelly persecuted by actual witches, one of whom must have caused the names on his list of Known Communists to become INVISIBLE.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was married to a homely woman, which is sort of a witch-related suffering, but not really.

No, no politician in American history has ever known such suffering as Trump. Richard Nixon had to talk to a man named Bebe Rebozo all the time, which sounds like it would not have been fun for him, and he constantly recorded himself, which — ugh! Nothing worse than hearing the sound of your own voice. No wonder he left office.

But nothing like Trump.

There were people in Salem who got witch-hunted, literally, but they were nobodies and also some of them were women (read: witches!). And that was different. That could not have been political, even if it was used to target financially independent women and people in positions of power in the Massachusetts town. They had not even invented Democrats yet.

So we must ask: Why is this happening to this man? Why is this witch hunt even taking place? Why do so many people think that Trump is a witch?

True, he may not think he is a witch. But are there not grounds for suspicion?

He has lots of things a witch might have, like invisible riches that fluctuate depending upon his feelings and the ability to make White House press secretary Sean Spicer squirm and twitch in his absence until Trump gives the word for his suffering to cease. Have you ever seen him recite the Lord’s Prayer all the way through? I have no idea if he floats when not on a yacht. Also, his hair stands on end at all times. Since he has taken office, Americans have begun aging 300 years in the course of a week. Time is out of joint. A ghastly specter has risen up from a vile mist and might be offered a position at the Department of Homeland Security. The world is a mist of illusion. Is this not witchcraft?

Then again, no. He would be a wizard. Witches are nasty women, whereas Trump is a mighty warlock whom we do not adequately appreciate and for whose witch’s teat and demon familiar we should immediately cease our search. If he has signed his name in the Devil’s Book, that simply means that the book is now much more valuable and classy.

Why won’t we leave him alone? Such a hunt is not fair to Trump, who does not have to do this, after all. Clearly, he is not adequately appreciated in the White House, and he should not feel compelled to stay in a place where he is not appreciated.

"Americans have begun aging 300 years in the course of a week" -- yes, yes, yes.

[nvmbr02]

Here is part of the disconnect with some American voters. 

We all need to work hard to set the record straight but getting through to some will be impossibly hard. 

Quote

“If you’re wishing for him to fail, you’re basically wishing for the pilot of the plane to crash,” Amodeo said. “You just gotta stick by him and hopefully he does things that benefit everyone.”

Quote

“I tuned it out,” said 44-year-old Michele Velardi, a mother of three sons, during a break from her job at a Staten Island hair salon. “I didn’t want to be depressed. I don’t want to feel that he’s not doing what he said, so I just choose to not listen.”

 

[JMarie]

36 minutes ago, nvmbr02 said:

“I tuned it out,” said 44-year-old Michele Velardi, a mother of three sons, during a break from her job at a Staten Island hair salon. “I didn’t want to be depressed. I don’t want to feel that he’s not doing what he said, so I just choose to not listen.”

How would she know when it's safe to start listening again??