President Rejected Trump 50: Patient Zero of the White House Covid Cluster

[Cartmann99]

 

[fraurosena]

I love George Takei!

 

[SilverBeach]

On 10/26/2020 at 6:27 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm a "woman of the suburbs" and, no, I don't love him and never, ever will.

This idiot doesn't get that there are many black suburban women like me, soccer moms too. I would rather love an actual turd.  He hasn't done a damn thing for my suburb, it was a nice place before him. 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by SilverBeach

[GreyhoundFan]

My middle fingers got a major workout this weekend. I live in a heavily Democratic area, but went to visit friends who live in a red area of PA. The Drumpf signs were everywhere. It made me ill. My county actually forbids campaign signs on public right-of-way areas, so I'm not used to seeing signs literally every two feet like they were there. Also, I don't know what businesses I would be able to patronize in their area, since most businesses had disgusting MAGA/KAG signs plastering their buildings. I have never been so happy to get home.

[SilverBeach]

Interesting discussion on 60 Minutes right now. Interview with a split couple.  The orange dump not being a decent human being, totally without a presidential temperament or intellect, is lost on these people. Some moronic dumper is speaking now about how she is better off now than four years ago, and despite her grandmother dying of Covid, the orange turd has done a good job. And her 401k is up. No hope for these people. Another moron is talking about his business acumen. If only government was a business. A one-issue prolifer. Excuse me while I go vomit. These people are in a real bubble, not at all seeing the condition this nation is presently in. Or the very real threats to democracy Dump represents. 

I think the split couple will end in divorce, LOL. 

One woman is talking about dump being for lawfulness. This heifer has probably never experienced any crime of any sort. I just hate people like her. With a passion. Dump supporters are just delusional, racist, garbage people.  If you can't tell, I'm fed the fuck up.

One more thing...I saw some Chinese leaders saying they want Dump to win because the US will continue to weaken and China can increase in power on the world stage.  His stupid followers don't understand any of this. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by SilverBeach

[Audrey2]

3 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

One woman is talking about dump being for lawfulness

(This is one I wish I had a lovely British accent, My thoughts would sound so much better in this accent than my American accent.)

Really? Trump is for law and order? Then he completely supports the guards (police/sheriff) being called out when people waving his banners block off a road right?

Yeah, if Biden's followers did something like that you know that the Trump supporters would show up with their teeny penies and their big ass guns. Trump would call them antifa and tell the state governors they need to call out the national guard or something.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Audrey2

[fraurosena]

It's a miracle he hasn't done it sooner.

 

[Jana814]

I’m surprised he hasn’t fired Fauci sooner also. Considering he hates anyone who doesn’t agree with what he says. 

[ignorantobserver]

Just a rather naive question for anyone who feels more competent then I am : for several weeks now, some huge European journals have been more or less insinuating that Trump, should he lose the election, might refuse to give up his seat willingly, and even call unto his faithful supporters to start violent riots. I didn't take this speculation very seriously because journalists here have been predicting crazy catastrophes ever since his nomination, and I still think they are getting carried away by their antipathy towards him. Endtime fantasies aside : do you think there could be violent outbursts, either in your neighborhood or in a city you know ? Do you know people personally who pronounce threats / insinuate they are going to push their political goals through violent means ? Anyway, I hope you all stay safe ! Take care.

[Flossie]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

It's a miracle he hasn't done it sooner.

 

Trumps threats might just be political posturing.  He's mercurial in nature (subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind), he lies like he breathes, and he's saying anything he can to appeal to his supporters.  You should read Psychology Today's article "An Analysis of Trump Supporters Has Identified 5 Key Traits"    

This is pretty much a heady combination of a malignant narcissist (who has every reason to stay in office because it soothes his personality disorder and keeps him out of jail), and a large group of people who have their own personality issues and are delighted to fuck over everyone else.  They've never felt such power, camaraderie, and now have the chance to stomp on anyone who ever disagreed with them or made them feel small.  Even if Fuckface loses the election, those supporters will keep up their antics, secure in the knowledge that for a time they were the people in charge and they'll keep trying to make it happen again.  And they're breeding.  Have you seen how many of them take children, even infants to his rallies?

Back to this issue.  It was discussed in July:

Can Trump fire Fauci? Technically, no

(CNN) President Donald Trump on Monday sought to downplay tension with Dr. Anthony Fauci after a White House official shared a statement that appeared to undermine the nation's leading infectious disease expert.

"I have a very good relationship with Dr. Fauci, I've had for a long time," Trump said at the White House during a roundtable event honoring police officers. "I find him to be a very nice person. I don't always agree with him."

A senior administration official also told CNN on Monday that recent frustration with Fauci does not stem from a lack of confidence in him. "It's not a crisis in confidence or a warning shot," the official said, adding it would be difficult to fire Fauci.

Under federal law, Trump doesn't have the power to directly fire Fauci, a career civil servant, and remove him from government. And while Trump could try ordering his political appointees to dismiss the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci could appeal -- a time-consuming process.

The President does, however, have the power to sideline Fauci, keeping him away from press briefings and media interviews -- as has happened in recent weeks, though Fauci has proven adept at pushing his message through different channels.

CNN spoke with Max Stier, president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service, about the history of the federal government's protections for civil servants and what might happen if Trump tried to go ahead with such a move. The conversation, conducted over the phone and lightly edited for flow, is below.

CNN: Tension between the President and Fauci has escalated in recent weeks and days. Could Trump fire Fauci and what would that look like?

MS: The President could not fire Fauci without cause. There are civil service protections for career federal employees that prevent them from being removed or demoted for political reasons.

CNN: When you say political reasons, what does that mean?

MS: I'll give a tiny bit of history because it's interesting and it goes back actually to 1881 when President James Garfield was assassinated by a would-be job seeker.

We had a spoils system that had dominated the government employment base and it didn't work. You had people coming into positions of public import who were there not because of their capability but because of their political connections and in a remarkable turnaround, then-Vice President Chester Arthur, who was a product of that spoils system himself supported legislation -- the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act -- that was a game-changer and professionalized the government employee base.

And it began a long process of making it more and more merit-based. And part of the outcome of that assassination then was a rule system that does not allow political leaders to remove or demote career civil servants without justification. And the justification has to be around poor performance, or failure to follow orders. And then there is a process that has to be followed even if there are allegations of performance or misconduct issues, and that process requires written notification and opportunity to respond.

So the President would not in this context be able to fire Dr. Fauci on the basis of not liking what Tony Fauci had to say.

CNN: So it sounds like there are quite a few protections that separate him from, say, a Trump Cabinet pick whom the President could fire via a Tweet.

MS: Exactly right. A Senate-confirmed political appointee serves at the pleasure of the President. So the President may fire really for any reason a senior political appointee.

CNN: If Trump did attempt to remove Fauci, could you walk through what that would look like? Would you have to go through Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar?

MS: The President of United States couldn't directly fire a career civil servant. They would have to go to someone in their chain of command. And so in this instance you'd have HHS Secretary Alex Azar or the Director for the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins, who I might add is an extraordinary public servant himself. And Fauci was one of his mentors when he started.

So it's worth noting that the NIH is not only an amazing science organization -- best in class in the world -- but it is almost entirely a career-led organization in government, and so therefore unusual in that respect. There's next to no one who is a political appointee and when you have someone, it's people like Francis Collins, who is a world-class scientist himself.

CNN: OK. And even if someone in the chain of command were willing to dismiss Fauci, there are channels for him to appeal it?

MS: That's correct. So he would have to be given, first, notice of what the allegation was. It would have to be misconduct or failure to follow orders or whatever else it might be. Then you have an opportunity to respond. And if the decision was still made to fire him, he could go to the Merit Systems Protection Board and ultimately to a court to claim that he was fired in violation of the civil service rules.

Now, obviously we're talking about firing him. It is clearly the case that the President, even if he can't fire him for any reason, he can sideline him. He doesn't have to listen to his advice, nor does he have to include him in the task force or otherwise allow him to be fundamentally in a deciding role. That is a choice the President or other senior political leaders could make.

CNN: It sounds like Fauci has recourse to a lengthy process if removing him is something the White House wanted to attempt. 

MS: It can be. And again, the individual -- the employee -- has to be willing to take on that process. 

But there are in place process protections to avoid instances in which employment becomes politicized. And again, it goes back to that root of a recognition that you want to have a merit based, um, civil service to make sure that Americans have the best decisions being made by their government. You want to have a professionalized and expert group of people in charge of issues of public import for just these kinds of circumstances we're in today when we face incredible crises.

I think one useful reminder is that Anthony Fauci has been leading the infectious disease component of the NIH since 1984. And he's been serving presidents for that entire time with expert advice.

And it is one of the ways in which our government is extraordinary. You don't find Tony Faucis in very many places in this country or the world. He is considered a gem in the science circles that are now pretty central to our safety and security.

CNN: It's striking the way Fauci's reputation has become such an asset to him politically. There are real political consequences for Trump for sidelining Fauci given the trust the American people have placed in him. 

MS: It's a really important point and also one we should be thoughtful about because there are many people who are equivalently capable in the federal government, but there are very few who have that trusted brand with the American public.

So the rules can provide a certain level of protection, but fundamentally the most important protection is the American public's appreciation of the value of a merit based system. And if you lose that understanding and appreciation, then you can get leaders who can work  the system in ways that were not intended, or that can damage it severely.

 

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, ignorantobserver said:

Just a rather naive question for anyone who feels more competent then I am : for several weeks now, some huge European journals have been more or less insinuating that Trump, should he lose the election, might refuse to give up his seat willingly, and even call unto his faithful supporters to start violent riots. I didn't take this speculation very seriously because journalists here have been predicting crazy catastrophes ever since his nomination, and I still think they are getting carried away by their antipathy towards him. Endtime fantasies aside : do you think there could be violent outbursts, either in your neighborhood or in a city you know ? Do you know people personally who pronounce threats / insinuate they are going to push their political goals through violent means ? Anyway, I hope you all stay safe ! Take care.

As Trump is now barricading himself in the White House (I posted about this in the presidential election thread), it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he will indeed refuse to leave office, figuratively and literally. He has so much at stake, after all. Not least of which is his personal freedom, which is a powerful motivator. The fact that nobody with the position of power to do so saw fit to hold him to account for his many egregious actions, and even now are suspiciously silent with Trump openly endorsing violence against his opponents, has only strengthened his belief that he can get away with anything.

I am not a crazy catastrophe theorist, nor am I a pessimist (quite the contrary), but I try to be a realist. There are many signs of impending conflict, the most recent of which were the surrounding of the Biden/Harris campaign bus by a caravan of heavily armed Trump followers and the backing of the Garden State Parkway by another such caravan of Trumpsters. It's frightening what could happen if this behaviour escalates when Trump calls victory even though it's clear he's lost, and refuses to concede or leave the office.

I hope with all my heart that after a lot of bluster and angry words and ditto tweets, things will fizzle down to a storm in a teacup, but I am very much apprehensive of what the next couple of days and months will bring. 

I also second @Flossie's comment below. Even If Trump loses and concedes, his supporters will not magically disappear. These are scary times for the US.

2 hours ago, Flossie said:

Even if Fuckface loses the election, those supporters will keep up their antics, secure in the knowledge that for a time they were the people in charge and they'll keep trying to make it happen again.  And they're breeding.  Have you seen how many of them take children, even infants to his rallies?

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by fraurosena
corrected name of the highway

[ignorantobserver]

27 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I am not a crazy catastrophe theorist, nor am I a pessimist (quite the contrary), but I try to be a realist. There are many signs of impending conflict, the most recent of which were the surrounding of the Biden/Harris campaign bus by a caravan of heavily armed Trump followers and the backing of the Garden State Parkway by another such caravan of Trumpsters. It's frightening what could happen if this behaviour escalates when Trump calls victory even though it's clear he's lost, and refuses to concede or leave the office.

Thank you @fraurosena ! That's really scary. Not yet "dictatorship"-level of scary, but it definitely starts to look like the stuff that happened in the not-quite-stable democracies of the 1920s. Groups of indoctrinated thugs harassing political opponents is a classical strategy of would-be autocrats who are trying to destabilize a political system. Personally, I think that Trump is really, really incompetent, probably far too incompetent to make any kind of organized effort to dismantle the democratic structures in the US. I am currently still holding on to that hope...

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, ignorantobserver said:

Just a rather naive question for anyone who feels more competent then I am : for several weeks now, some huge European journals have been more or less insinuating that Trump, should he lose the election, might refuse to give up his seat willingly, and even call unto his faithful supporters to start violent riots. I didn't take this speculation very seriously because journalists here have been predicting crazy catastrophes ever since his nomination, and I still think they are getting carried away by their antipathy towards him. Endtime fantasies aside : do you think there could be violent outbursts, either in your neighborhood or in a city you know ? Do you know people personally who pronounce threats / insinuate they are going to push their political goals through violent means ? Anyway, I hope you all stay safe ! Take care.

I do think there is a very, very real risk. I base this not on any news reports but just what I am seeing in the people I know who are rabid Trump supporters. For starters evangelicals have been building up to this entire scenario since at least the 80's. They have been itching for an opportunity like this. It isn't just Alyssa Webster's church that is presenting this as a war and Christians needing to act like soldiers, I've seen similar remarks from mainstream Southern Baptists. They not only live in an alternative world where democrats are trying to wipe out Christianity, they also believe that the reason church membership is dropping, gay people have rights and white power is diminishing is because Christians have been "too nice". They view Trump losing as the final nail in their ability to return, to quote Lindsey Graham, "the good old days of segregation". Do not underestimate how these people will fight to keep power. 

I'm not sure what they will do, I know many of the Trumpsters around here are heavily armed and would be willing to use those guns if they thought doing so would keep Trump in power. They believe that the only way Trump could lose is if it was rigged and therefore they will be justified in fighting to keep him in the White House. Especially if Trump tells them to gather their guns and create an army. 

I would like to think that it will just be fringe people who take up guns and try to overthrow our election, but I know that there is a very real chance that next week at this time our country could be in total chaos. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Sadly, this is his core philosophy:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes, an apt metaphor:

 

[fraurosena]

54 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

Personally, I think that Trump is really, really incompetent, probably far too incompetent to make any kind of organized effort to dismantle the democratic structures in the US.

I wholeheartedly agree that Trump is far too incompetent. However, Mitch McConnell has been, at first quietly, but now quite openly and defiantly, chipping away at democracy for more than a decade. He is the main orchestrator of the political troubles the US finds itself in right now. Trump is just a perfect patsy, who can be played like a fiddle. Mind you, McConnell isn't acting all alone, but he has been in the single most powerful position to do the most harm, and he's taken full advantage of it. 

The way the democratic system has been set up in the US is asking for it to be abused and misused. The two party system and the electoral college have made it possible for the minority to take hold of power, which has enabled them to consolidate that power in such a way that they can facilitate the destruction of any semblance of democracy. It only takes a few bad actors for the whole system to fall down. 

[Smee]

I'm beginning to wonder if America isn't already in the early stages of another civil war. FreeJinger is a liberal site so of course here the discussion is more about the far right starting a violent uprising if Trump loses (and personally, I think that's a likely scenario too) but it honestly could also go the other way. Fear and anger are powerful motivators, and there are people hanging on by a thread who have pinned their last hopes on a Biden win, who knows how they will react if he loses - especially if it's down to the electoral college again, and a significant number of mail-in ballots aren't counted. When people are seeing their families and friends die at the hands of police, or of Covid, or of poverty after job losses while the rich don't pay taxes, and then they see their democracy fail due to voter suppression and an outdated system that counts some votes more than others... riots and secession can look like the only option left.

I'm afraid for tomorrow (it's already Tuesday morning here in Aus, so it all feels incredibly close) but it also feels like on some level the result won't mean much beyond which side the political allies are allowed to sympathise with. I hope I'm wrong, of course. 

[ignorantobserver]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

The way the democratic system has been set up in the US is asking for it to be abused and misused. The two party system and the electoral college have made it possible for the minority to take hold of power, which has enabled them to consolidate that power in such a way that they can facilitate the destruction of any semblance of democracy. It only takes a few bad actors for the whole system to fall down. 

The US are a really interesting case because they are one of the oldest functioning democracies, and they have been historically very stable. A lot of these "dysfunctions" are due to the fact that the constitution is quite old and doesn't reflect the administrative situation of the modern world as well as it used to. Are there amendments / ameliorations that could mitigate these effects in your opinion ? Could the electoral college for example be abolished, as the logistic constraints that made it necessary don't exist any longer ?

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

I would like to think that it will just be fringe people who take up guns and try to overthrow our election, but I know that there is a very real chance that next week at this time our country could be in total chaos. 

That's certainly the favorite fantasy of those pro-gun people, to be able to wage a civil war. I don't know much about the topic, but I am very sceptical when it comes to these power fantasies - the US has by far the most powerful military in the world. Warfare has changed since the Civil War, and I just don't see a group of thugs with shotguns (even several tens of thousands thugs with shotguns) stand any chance whatsoever against a squad of professional snipers. Heck, military technology has advanced to a point where soldiers don't even have to put themselves in danger anymore. One drone and your drunk, disorganised Trump-supporters are dead. How could they hope to achieve anything ? They would just get themselves (and probably a lot of civilians) killed for no reason.

Edit : Obviously, this is still a nightmarish scenario, and would certainly plunge the country into chaos for weeks. But still. Is there really a sizeable population of Trump supporters who are sufficiently disconnected from reality to believe that they could win an armed conflict against the US military ? And how many of these people (who have never known anything but peace, safety and modern comfort) would keep it up once confronted with the reality of war ? The whole idea seems so... well, decadent. As if they had lived in peace for too long and forgotten what war actually means. Or do they watch too many action movies ? Sorry, I am not at all doubting what you are saying, your concerns are very serious and alarming - I just can't quite wrap my head around the fact that people would fantazise about joining a faction in a civil war.

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by ignorantobserver

[GreyhoundFan]

Dear Rufus, I've been a reasonably good GreyhoundFan this year. May I have an early birthday gift by seeing Twitler tossed into Rikers? Please?

 

[fraurosena]

14 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

A lot of these "dysfunctions" are due to the fact that the constitution is quite old and doesn't reflect the administrative situation of the modern world as well as it used to. Are there amendments / ameliorations that could mitigate these effects in your opinion ? Could the electoral college for example be abolished, as the logistic constraints that made it necessary don't exist any longer ?

America has been a democracy only at face value from the start. Only now is the facade slowly slipping. A system where the minority can rule is doomed to fail. A system which allows lobbying with monetary incentives (essentially legalised corruption), is doomed to revert to an autocracy where the rich determine the laws and regulations and elections are just for show. A system that has an imbalance of power between its three pillars (the legislative -- corrupted in this system -- has full power over who is appointed to the judiciary, whilst being corrupted by the rich) is doomed to disintegrate.

Could the Electoral College be abolished? Well, yes, if there was political incentive to do so. But as long as the rich essentially rule, there will never be any incentive in that direction. 

What needs to be done (mind you, I'm highly doubtful this would ever happen, but this is my best-case-most-hopeful scenario) in my opinion:

• Abolishment of the Electoral College.
• A complete overhaul of the Constitution and its Amendments, firmly placing it in the 21st century. The founding fathers were smart, but they were only humans and humans of their time at that. What they wrote needs to be pulled into modern times.
• An equal spread of power between the three pillars of government. Abolish the possibility of political appointments of the judiciary.
• An equal spread of power between the House and the Senate.
• Drastically curb the power of the Senate Majority Leader (so they cannot singlehandedly keep bills from the Senate floor for example).
• Abolish the two party system (though how that can be accomplished is unclear to me).
• Set term limits to House, Senate and Judiciary.
• Change the minimum age requirement for election to the House (currently 25) and Senate (currently 30) to 18. This will allow the younger generations to engage more fully in politics and make their voices heard.
• Abolish the possibility of gerrymandering and make any form of voter suppression illegal. County lines should be drawn up by the counties themselves, or by a non-political entity.
• All citizens above the age of 18 are automatically registered to vote in any state or federal elections. Ballots must be automatically and without request be sent to the registered home address of voters. Ensure that voting is easy, with enough polling stations and ballot boxes. Mandate voter ID's, but make these easily assessable, like passport and drivers licence. Mail-in ballots should have high priority status. All votes must be counted.

There is much more that can be done, but this would be a good start, I think. 

[Smee]

41 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

That's certainly the favorite fantasy of those pro-gun people, to be able to wage a civil war. I don't know much about the topic, but I am very sceptical when it comes to these power fantasies - the US has by far the most powerful military in the world. Warfare has changed since the Civil War, and I just don't see a group of thugs with shotguns (even several tens of thousands thugs with shotguns) stand any chance whatsoever against a squad of professional snipers. Heck, military technology has advanced to a point where soldiers don't even have to put themselves in danger anymore. One drone and your drunk, disorganised Trump-supporters are dead. How could they hope to achieve anything ? They would just get themselves (and probably a lot of civilians) killed for no reason.

 

I don't think a civil war would look like people lined up with shotguns. I think it would need to be more organised than that, but the frightening thing to me is with the enormous size of America's military, there's a LOT of ex-soldiers there who do understand how modern warfare operates, and it's not expensive or difficult to make their own drones, for example. If they were able to organise their side and be tactical (again, ex-military people would be the more likely leaders in this scenario) they could do some serious damage to things like food and water supplies, blowing up important roads etc. But even in terms of individuals on the ground with guns, think of a more violent version of BLM - clashes between police/military and civilians, night after night in too many cities to send the national guard to all of them, mostly happening in dense areas full of innocents so a drone strike or snipers would a) incite more people to rise up against the government that killed American citizens and b) destroy their reputation with overseas allies.

[ignorantobserver]

1 hour ago, Smee said:

there's a LOT of ex-soldiers there who do understand how modern warfare operates, and it's not expensive or difficult to make their own drones, for example.

Really stupid question, I am sincerely wondering about that : do you really, honestly think anyone could wage a two-sided war against the US army, with home-made drones and veterans ? I don't know enough about military infrastructure, but wouldn't drones be completely useless without the corresponding satellites / software ? How much useful knowledge can individual ex-soldiers possess, without access to current intelligence or the weapons they have trained with, assuming that most of them are going to be... well, probably not highly educated engineers or officers ? What could they accomplish without airplanes ? helicopters ? night-vision whatchamacallit ? I love Rambo as much as anyone, but that's not reality, that's a macho fantasy with a superhero protagonist...

 

[Dandruff]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I hope with all my heart that after a lot of bluster and angry words and ditto tweets, things will fizzle down to a storm in a teacup, but I am very much apprehensive of what the next couple of days and months will bring.

I live in a DC suburb and have no idea whether it'll be safe to go out later this week.  I expect there to be an uproar by whichever the losing side is.  Hope it doesn't spill out of the city.

[Becky]

24 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

Really stupid question, I am sincerely wondering about that : do you really, honestly think anyone could wage a two-sided war against the US army, with home-made drones and veterans ? I don't know enough about military infrastructure, but wouldn't drones be completely useless without the corresponding satellites / software ? How much useful knowledge can individual ex-soldiers possess, without access to current intelligence or the weapons they have trained with, assuming that most of them are going to be... well, probably not highly educated engineers or officers ? What could they accomplish without airplanes ? helicopters ? night-vision whatchamacallit ? I love Rambo as much as anyone, but that's not reality, that's a macho fantasy with a superhero protagonist...

 

 It a not a stupid question at all. I see it the same way. Sorry, dudes, your semi- autos are not going to be much help when the tanks show up. See Waco.

I really, really hope it does not come to armed conflict but the current state of the country has me on edge. 

[47of74]

Hey fuck face before you call your opponents members of a crime family maybe you should check to see if you have any mobsters donating to your campaign.

Quote

Donald Trump, who derides the Bidens as “an organized crime family” whose members should be “locked up,” has benefitted from about $40,000 in campaign contributions connected to a pair of actual Mafia figures, records show.

The donations to Trump’s reelection effort have come from two wealthy automobile dealers who have been identified by law enforcement officials and mob turncoats as members of the Colombo crime family, one of New York’s five La Cosa Nostra outfits.

One of the donors, John Staluppi, 73, first met the president in the late-80s when the men worked together to design the Donald Trump signature series Cadillac limousine. Trump’s deal with Staluppi and his partner--both of whom were convicted felons--was the first time the developer licensed his name for a product. The limo was marketed years before the Trump handle began appearing on steaks, water, bedding, cologne, vodka, etc..

The other Trump contributor, John Rosatti, 76, is a lifelong friend of Staluppi who has also made donations this election cycle to Republican senators Steve Daines and Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, and John Cummings, who is running against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.