Trump 44: Finally on Trial

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

So I'm guessing he's either going to fire Wray or abolish the FBI (or both). I know the repugs will back him either way. "Trump lashes out at FBI director in wake of Justice Department inspector general’s report"

Spoiler

President Trump lashed out Tuesday morning at FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, suggesting that “he will never be able to fix the FBI” based on his reaction to a Justice Department inspector general’s report examining the bureau’s investigation of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me,” Trump tweeted. “With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!”

The 434-page report rebutted conservatives’ accusations that top FBI officials were driven by political bias to illegally spy on Trump advisers as part of the probe into Russian election interference, but it also found broad and “serious performance failures” requiring major changes.

In a statement Monday, Wray, a Trump appointee, said he had ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the report’s recommendations,” adding that he would not hesitate to take “appropriate disciplinary action if warranted.”

He noted to ABC News, though, that it was “important that the inspector general found that, in this particular instance, the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization.”

The report, which was based on more than 1 million documents and more than 170 interviews, is the most exhaustive assessment to date of the investigation of Russian election interference that roiled Trump’s presidency, a probe that would ultimately be taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Wray was sworn in as FBI director in August 2017, replacing Andrew McCabe, who had been leading the bureau in an acting capacity after Trump fired James B. Comey.

Unlike Comey, Wray has sought to keep a low profile, and that has helped him somewhat to avoid conflict with the commander in chief.

But the FBI director has found himself at odds with Trump at times. For example, Wray earlier this year said he would not use the term “spying” to describe the FBI’s surveillance activities toward the Trump campaign in 2016 — contradicting both the president and Attorney General William P. Barr.

At the time, Trump said Wray gave “a ridiculous answer.”

Officials have said Barr and Wray have a good working relationship, but they expect the inspector general’s report will increase tensions at least in the short term between the FBI and the Justice Department, as well as with the White House.

Although Wray is appointed to a 10-year term, ostensibly to remove him from politics, Trump could fire him. Doing so, however, would come with significant political risk.

Trump’s May 2017 firing of Comey, his first FBI director, produced far-reaching consequences that have dogged his presidency ever since.

Before Comey’s firing, Trump was not a direct subject in the FBI investigation into whether his campaign had coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election. But after Comey’s removal, the FBI began investigating Trump personally for possible obstruction of justice.

In earlier tweets Tuesday, Trump selectively highlighted findings from the inspector general’s report by quoting Fox News commentators who said it documented “very serious misconduct.”

“Are you listening Comey, McCabe, lovers Lisa & Peter, the beautiful Ohr family, Brennan, Clapper & many more?” Trump added in his own words, referring to several former FBI and intelligence community officials he has repeatedly criticized.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A great op-ed: "As Democrats unveil impeachment articles, Trump signals corruption will continue"

Spoiler

President Trump fired his first FBI director after demanding his “loyalty.” The special counsel established “substantial evidence” that Trump did so out of frustration with his refusal to publicly clear the president of conspiring with a foreign power’s effort to subvert our political system on his behalf.

Now Trump is once again tacitly threatening to fire a second FBI director, for the same reason: He is failing to publicly clear him of conspiring with a foreign power’s effort to subvert our political system on his behalf.

It’s fitting that Democrats just unveiled articles of impeachment against Trump at almost exactly the same moment. Because you could not ask for a clearer sign that Trump fully intends to keep wielding all the levers of government at his disposal to corrupt the coming election.

Trump may as well be standing atop the White House and shouting into a bullhorn that if and when the Senate acquits him, he will only feel more emboldened to do just that.

The two articles Democrats just unveiled are for abuse of power over his efforts to extort Ukraine into doing his political bidding, and for obstructing Congress’ efforts to ferret out the truth about that whole scheme.

It appears an additional article for obstruction of justice — one including the multiple corrupt acts documented in the special counsel’s report — is not in the offing. But Trump’s latest rage-threat raises questions about whether a broader focus is needed, as I’ll argue below.

Trump just raged at FBI Director Christopher Wray for telling the truth about the findings of the review by the Justice Department’s inspector general into the origins of the Russia investigation. Wray noted that it “did not find political bias or improper motivations” driving the opening or handling of that investigation.

Trump just threatened him over this:

Let’s be clear: The sin that Wray committed is that he refused to use his office to validate Trump’s years-long disinformation campaign to make a foreign attack on our democracy, and his own efforts to benefit from it, disappear.

Stop both-sidesing this

Discrediting the investigation as illegitimate has long been Trump’s goal, and some media coverage is strangely misstating this crucial fact. Accounts are saying in various forms that the inspector general’s report has allowed “both sides” to claim vindication.

The basis for this is that the report documented numerous serious mistakes in such matters as the handling of wiretap applications, and concluded that the threshold for starting such investigations might need reform.

Those are certainly serious matters — indeed, civil libertarians have been arguing such things for years — but they do not vindicate Trump’s core claim in any way, shape or form. Trump’s primary argument for years has been that the investigation was illegitimate and was driven by a “deep state” plot to rig the election against him.

And the inspector general report completely debunked this notion, finding that the investigation was lawfully predicated and was not motivated by any political effort to stop Trump. Any both-sidesing that confuses what Trump’s core argument has long been, and how thoroughly it has been debunked, is just misleading people.

It is a telling fact that even as this both-sidesing is in process, Trump continues to state that the investigation was illegitimate and that the inspector general confirmed this. Trump claimed the inspector general demonstrated an “attempted overthrow” of the government, when it concluded precisely the opposite.

The problem is that any media coverage that implies Trump secured some sort of vindication creates a favorable climate for Trump to engage in this even more absurd set of lies.

After all, the fact that Trump’s FBI director was absolutely clear on this -- that there was no vindication -- is precisely why Trump is now threatening him. Trump probably won’t go through with any firing, but what’s beyond doubt is that Trump still feels absolutely unconstrained, and will keep pressuring law enforcement to validate his ongoing effort to make Russian sabotage of our 2016 election vanish.

This is precisely what Trump is counting on Attorney General William Barr to do: Use his office to cast doubt on the inspector general’s conclusions, and further the narrative that the original investigation was illegitimate.

Which brings us back to the articles of impeachment.

Broader is better

If there is no article for obstruction of justice, as documented by the special counsel, it could in effect clear the field for Barr to continue using government to bury the original sin of Trump’s corruption — his effort to solicit foreign interference in the last election and his extensively corrupt and likely criminal efforts to cover it up.

After all, Trump is continuing to do that right at this moment: In pressuring Wray, he is continuing that very same coverup effort. And he is openly declaring that he expects Barr to carry that forward as well: He said that “I look forward” to Barr’s own review of the Russia probe, which will contain “its own information.”

That is, it will reach the conclusion Trump wants it to.

An article for attempting to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference and his own campaign’s efforts to reap the benefits would establish a pattern. Not just with regard to Trump’s effort to extort Ukraine for the same purpose, but also with regard to Trump’s ongoing manipulation of government to cover up his willingness to conspire with and benefit from the corruption of our election last time.

After all, Trump just told us that those efforts will continue as clearly as we could possibly expect him to.

 

[Dandruff]

I see no reason to believe he'll stop.  What else could have gotten him this far...integrity, talent, honesty, or decency?

[GreyhoundFan]

From the WaPo editorial board: "Trump’s reaction to the Pensacola shooting was insensitive and insufficient"

Spoiler

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S reaction to the murderous rampage in Pensacola, Fla., on Friday by an officer of the Royal Air Force of Saudi Arabia was insensitive and grossly insufficient. Three American servicemen lost their lives and eight were wounded by a Saudi wielding a 9mm Glock 45 pistol in a killing rampage that the FBI says is being investigated as terrorism. What does the president say? He finds it “shocking” and conveys the condolences of “very, very devastated” King Salman of Saudi Arabia and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and adds that the kingdom will “help out the families very greatly.”

Not a word from Mr. Trump about the threat of terrorism, or a shred of curiosity about motives and whether the Saudi officer was radicalized and by whom, or a thought about what Saudi Arabia could do to help investigate the shooter, or perhaps a lament that a pilot, a guest of the United States, would carry out such a horrific assault on his hosts, or even a worry about where the 21-year-old officer got the weapon. Mr. Trump quickly pivoted to say there were a lot of countries participating in the aviator training program. He often performs this pivot, a telltale dodge. “There are a lot of killers,” he said once when asked about a leader who dispatches assassins abroad. “I think there is blame on both sides,” he said after Charlottesville.

Mr. Trump has an inexplicable blind spot for Saudi Arabia. He has no trouble insulting in the vilest way people from other Muslim countries. He is hostile generally to people from “shithole” countries. After a terrorist attack in London, he said on Twitter, “These animals are crazy and must be dealt with through toughness and strength!” But when a Saudi carries out an attack on a U.S. military base, Mr. Trump becomes a spokesman and apologist for the king.

King Salman has assured Mr. Trump, according to an embassy news release, that he has “directed Saudi security services to cooperate with the relevant American agencies to uncover information that will help determine the cause of this horrific attack.” Perhaps Mr. Trump thinks Americans have forgotten that when Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi was dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Mr. Trump and members of his administration vowed, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put it, to pursue “a thorough, transparent and timely investigation, including accountability for those responsible for the killing.” This promise remains unfulfilled.

The king’s promises of cooperation might be more credible if he would direct his intelligence service, and the crown prince to whom it reports, to pay more attention to cases of radicalization and less to what seem to be the prince’s top priorities: silencing peaceful dissent, torturing women who campaigned for the right to drive, surveilling the relatives of the murdered Khashoggi. Mr. Trump might ask the king to make public who really ordered that murder and to free the writers and activists the regime has thrown into prison. That is, if Mr. Trump could see beyond his blind spot.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm guessing he'll start crowing about how much he gives charity without mentioning that it was court-ordered: "Trump pays $2 million in damages ordered by judge over misuse of charity funds, according to NY attorney general"

Spoiler

President Trump has paid $2 million in court-ordered damages for misusing funds in a tax-exempt charity he controlled, the New York attorney general said Tuesday.

The payment was ordered last month by a New York state judge in an extraordinary rebuke to a sitting president. Trump had been sued in 2018 by the New York attorney general, who alleged the president had illegally used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to buy portraits of himself, pay off his businesses’ legal obligations and help his 2016 campaign.

The money was split among eight charities, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). The charities were the Army Emergency Relief, the Children’s Aid Society, Citymeals-on-Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha’s Table, the United Negro College Fund, the United Way of National Capital Area, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, according to the statement.

In addition, Trump agreed to distribute the remaining $1.8 million left in the Donald J. Trump Foundation to the same eight charities. In all, each charity received $476,140.41.

“Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities,” James said in the statement. “My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the president of the United States.”

In a statement, attorneys for Trump said: “The legacy of the Trump Foundation — which gave away many millions to those in need at virtually no cost — is secure.” They did not answer a reporter’s query about whether Trump intended to count the court-ordered $2 million payment on his taxes as a charitable deduction.

The payments bring an end to the life of the Trump Foundation, which Trump started in 1987 to give away proceeds from his book “the Art of the Deal.” It went nearly dormant during Trump’s lean years in the 1990s.

In the 2000s, Trump began to use the charity in ways that benefited himself or his businesses, according to the attorney general’s lawsuit. He used the charity’s cash to buy paintings of himself and sports memorabilia and to pay $258,000 in legal settlements for his for-profit clubs.

Charity leaders are barred from using their nonprofits’ money for personal benefit.

Trump also used the charity to boost political campaigns — first, Pamela Bondi’s Florida attorney general campaign, and then his own 2016 campaign. Trump gave away Trump Foundation checks onstage at rallies, despite strict rules barring nonprofit charities from participating in political campaigns.

The New York attorney general’s suit drew heavily on reporting by The Washington Post during the 2016 election.

Now, the foundation will be shuttered. The consequences of this case will linger for Trump. Under the terms of the settlement, he has agreed to special supervision if he ever returns to charity work in New York.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief:

 

[WiseGirl]

I'm with Aunt Crabby what the fuck???

[thoughtful]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Good grief:

 

The mob pointing and yelling made me think of this:

Spoiler

(a different Donald, from the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers).

 

 

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

I'm with Aunt Crabby what the fuck???

What’s worse about that statement is that he made it way back in 2017, just after he had fired Comey and gave Lavrov secret intelligence on Israel. It was Comey’s ouster and the statements in this article, among many other things, that started the Mueller investigation.

It’s not like his erroneous belief in the absolute power of his office wasn’t known from the get go.

What wasn’t known back then was how deep the sycophantic enabling by the repugliklans went, and how far they were willing to abase themselves in propping him up and do Putin’s bidding, ignoring their oath to uphold the constitution.

If not for that, this administration would be long gone. For that matter, it might not even have existed in the first place.

Their propping up of Trump, in my opinion, is the most egregious thing in politics in America right now.

[Smash!]

6 hours ago, fraurosena said:

What wasn’t known back then was how deep the sycophantic enabling by the repugliklans went, and how far they were willing to abase themselves in propping him up and do Putin’s bidding, ignoring their oath to uphold the constitution.

If not for that, this administration would be long gone. For that matter, it might not even have existed in the first place.

This tweet from George Takei fits right in your comment:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

So, he has a hissy when someone even mentions his child's name, yet he can mock another child. Yeah, that's par for the course. "Trump mocks 16-year-old Greta Thunberg a day after she is named Time’s Person of the Year"

Spoiler

President Trump on Thursday mocked Greta Thunberg, the Swedish 16-year-old climate activist, calling her distinction as Time magazine’s Person of the Year “ridiculous” and suggesting she work on anger-management issues and go to a movie with a friend.

Trump’s advice, in a morning tweet, came a day after Thunberg, who has mobilized millions of people to fight climate change and condemned leaders’ inaction, became the youngest person to be dubbed Person of the Year by Time.

“So ridiculous,” Trump tweeted. “Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”

Trump was responding to a tweet congratulating Thunberg by Roma Downey, an actress and producer from Northern Ireland. Her production credits include the History Channel miniseries, “The Bible,” which she also starred in as Mary, mother of Jesus.

Thunberg wasted little time in offering a rejoinder to Trump. Shortly after his tweet, she had updated her Twitter profile to read: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” also took note of Thunberg in September, following an appearance at a United Nations climate summit where she offered an impassioned — and somewhat fatalistic — plea to global leaders.

“She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!” Trump wrote on Twitter at the time.

Thunberg subsequently embraced Trump’s sarcastic description and altered her Twitter profile to describe herself to her followers as “a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”

At her U.N. appearance, Thunberg chastised leaders for praising young activists like herself while failing to deliver on drastic actions needed to avert the worst effects of climate change, and she warned that if the world continued with business as usual, her generation would face an insurmountable catastrophe.

In explaining Time’s choice of Thunberg as Person of the Year, the magazine’s editor in chief, Edward Felsenthal, said Wednesday that “she became the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet this year, coming from essentially nowhere to lead a worldwide movement.”

Thunberg represents a broader phenomenon of young people pushing for change, Felsenthal said during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show. He pointed to the Parkland, Fla., high school students who became a leading voice on gun control, as well as to another finalist for 2019 Person of the Year: the Hong Kong protesters who have spent months in the streets urging democratic reform.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Nope: "Is Donald Trump growing into the presidency?"

Spoiler

Longtime readers of Spoiler Alerts are aware of my efforts to keep track of when President Trump’s staffers, subordinates and political allies talk about him like he’s a toddler. Over a bit less than three years, there are 1,113 documented examples of this phenomenon, which averages out to more than one a day.

To develop this analogy further, I’m proud to announce that a University of Chicago Press book will be coming out in the spring on this topic. There’s a jacket cover and everything!

In the process of curating the #ToddlerinChief thread, I have benefited from the assistance of many people who catch possible stories containing toddler-like descriptions. On Wednesday, I got pinged about the possibility of another one in a story by my Post colleagues Lisa Rein and Josh Dawsey. The first version of the story suggested that Trump had given up on eliminating the Office of Personnel Management because “Trump soured on continuing the fight after seeing an obscure Washington-area television program about government, according to White House officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.”

There are a lot of #ToddlerinChief entries that involve Trump having too much screen time, so this was definitely a candidate for inclusion. Was he watching “Schoolhouse Rock”?

In an updated version of the story, however, Rein and Dawsey revealed that the program was actually WJLA’s “Government Matters.” This seems pretty … mature? During a week in which Trump finally secured bipartisan agreement on a trade deal, it also raises a question: Are examples like these evidence that, dare I say it, Donald Trump is finally growing into the presidency?

Let’s not leave this reader in suspense: The answer is no. As Aaron Rupar explains in Vox, Trump continues to behave in an unhinged, unconstrained manner. The president’s behavior has not changed one iota, which is why, until this month, the quarterly #ToddlerinChief count had shown a steady increase.

What has changed, however, is something akin to what I warned about back in January: “Shifts in the political balance of power in Washington are altering the incentives for who deploys the analogy.” In particular, two ongoing dynamics have slowed down the toddler mentions: the purging of the executive branch and the impeachment of Trump in Congress.

Within the executive branch, Trump has continued to force out subordinates who have resisted his more toddler-like impulses. The most obvious recent example was the departure of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer, who was fired because of his disagreement with Trump’s decision to intervene in the military justice system. Spencer later wrote an op-ed for The Post in which he stated, “the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.” An even more recent example came this week when FBI Director Christopher A. Wray defended the FBI from baseless conspiracy theories. In response, Trump swatted at him on Twitter.

The population ecology here is simple: The more Trump makes life miserable for mature people serving under him, the more likely those people will leave the government and stop being a source of good toddler analogies. Over time, Trump’s staff is becoming as immature as he is.

Impeachment is having the same effect on another reliable source of toddler episodes: Republican members of Congress. The GOP has closed ranks and refused to defect from Trump, which means things like Ben Sasse being Ben Sasse again. Oh, sure, folks like former GOP congressman Charlie Dent will say that his colleagues are “absolutely disgusted and exhausted” by Trump, but that is weak beer.

There will still be regular additions to the #ToddlerinChief thread. Former staffers still spill a lot of beans. Treaty allies are a good source of fodder for this as well. But Trump has succeeded in weeding out all but the most indulgent caregivers. And they will be less likely to tattle.

 

[fraurosena]

Juicy detail: the judge is a Trump appointee. It turns out all those judges, be they Republican leaning or not, Trump appointee or not, still find upholding the rule of law the most important aspect of their positions.

Judge rejects government’s motion to toss suit over missing Trump-Putin meeting notes

Quote

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to toss out a lawsuit over missing notes documenting President Donald Trump’s face-to-face meetings with President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

American Oversight and Democracy Forward, a pair of left-leaning nonpartisan watchdog groups, sued Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the State Department, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the archivist of the United States in June over the missing notes. The groups charge that Pompeo violated the Federal Records Act by allowing Trump to reportedly confiscate meeting notes prepared by State Department employees and for failing to preserve them.

In a ruling from the bench on Wednesday, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case.

The order by McFadden, a Trump appointee, means that the lawsuit will be allowed to move forward and gives the government until Jan. 10 to say whether Pompeo complied with federal records law or show why he was not obligated to do so. Pompeo will then have until the middle of March to produce the State Department’s record of evidence.

The Washington Post first reported in January that Trump had gone to “extraordinary” lengths to conceal the details of his meetings with Putin, seizing the notes of his interpreter after the leaders’ first meeting in 2017 and ordering the translator not to disclose details of the discussion. Furthermore, The Post reported that no detailed record of Trump’s communications with Putin existed, prompting a flurry of document requests from Congress and outside groups.

Trump and Putin have met in person multiple times, including a handful of occasions where few, if any, other U.S. officials were present. The disclosure of a lack of records came in the midst of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

“The administration has done everything it can to hide what Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump discussed in Hamburg,” Austin Evers, executive director at American Oversight, said in a statement in response to Wednesday’s ruling. “Today’s ruling is an important step to ensuring the government complied with its legal obligations.”

Democracy Forward’s senior counsel also cheered the order. “President Trump clearly wishes to shield his interactions with foreign leaders even from those within his administration. But the law doesn’t allow Secretary Pompeo to turn a blind eye to those efforts,” Nitin Shah said in a statement, calling the ruling “a win for government transparency and accountability.”

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

In its motion to dismiss earlier this fall, the State Department rejected the watchdog groups’ characterization of the interpreter notes subject to the Federal Records Act and argued that Pompeo, who was not yet secretary at the time of several of the Trump-Putin meetings, was not obligated to recover and preserve the interpreter notes Trump took possession of.

Trump’s efforts to keep under wraps the details of his conversations with other world leaders have taken on a new light in the wake of the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

As outlined in an August whistleblower complaint, the White House took the unusual step of placing a rough transcript of the July phone call between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, which is at the heart of the probe, in a secure server meant only for highly classified documents.

 

[fraurosena]

And so the dictatorship commences.

Of course Trump has been hinting at a third term for quite some time. He may have seemed to be joking, but here you have proof that he's dead serious, and there are trumplicans willing to sell the idea via the state propaganda machine. And the base will gobble it up like candy.

[thoughtful]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

 

 

[Coco]

Rep Wilson ? 

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1205234686919925760 

Rep. Frederica Wilson to Betsy DeVos: "I've had some honest disagreements with my friends in the Republican party about how to move education forward but I've never, not one time, believed that they were out to destroy public education until I met you."

plus her last statement in the clip. ?????? It's definitely one reason I'll be voting blue, that's for sure. 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Coco

[Howl]

Update: The Candy Man and Trump's ex WH physician, Dr. Ronny -- that would be Ronny "OMG He's the HEALTHIEST MAN I'VE EVER SEEN" Jackson, MD -- has just retired from the Navy and will be running in the Republican primary for US Congressional District 13 in the Panhandle of Texas.  It's an odd looking district that includes the Panhandle with Amarillo in the middle, and then cuts a swathe about 300 miles southeast, close to the outskirts of Fort Worth and Dallas. One boundary is the Texas-Oklahoma border. 

This is agrarian country; cattle ranching and cotton farming mostly, and  the wind blows, a lot.  He did grow up in Levelland, about 30 miles west of Lubbock,  and still has family there. Levelland/Lubbuck are just west of the district that he is running for. 

Dr. Ronny has zero experience in politics, aside from having his butt kicked in his failed VA nomination and having his lack of professionalism exposed like a weeping, open sore.  I don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell; there are about 13 others running in the primary, but you never know.  This the hardest of hardcore Trump country. 

Reading his Wiki, he did have a stellar Naval career and served in Iraq as an emergency medicine physician with a forward operating unit, so he saw some shit.  Maybe some drug and alcohol problems? Who knows. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Ozlsn]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

He's such a secure, mature man isn't he?

Also that photoshop gives him a pencil neck. 

[Dandruff]

2 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

Also that photoshop gives him a pencil neck.

At least they just showed his head.

[Ozlsn]

1 minute ago, Dandruff said:

At least they just showed his head.

And gave him a boob reduction.

[JMarie]

He looks stupid in a hoodie.

[GreyhoundFan]

20 minutes ago, JMarie said:

He looks stupid in a hoodie.

Fixed it for you!