Trump 54: A Grand Jury Has Been Called For The Former Guy!

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, Xan said:

They just want to make sure that they keep their tax cuts. 

So what are they saying about the tax windfalls Biden is proposing for the mid- and lower incomes by taxing the top 1%?

[SassyPants]

My thoughts re prayer in public school. If you want prayer and/or religion included in your child’s education, there is a place where you can get it. It’s called private school, and it costs money. You want that, open your pocketbook, pull on your bootstraps and PAY FOR IT. Decisions and choices have consequences. Put your money where your religious beliefs exist, and stop looking for the government to solve your problems 😂

[Alisamer]

11 hours ago, fraurosena said:

So what are they saying about the tax windfalls Biden is proposing for the mid- and lower incomes by taxing the top 1%?

For a lot of them it's aspirational thinking. 

Sure, they would benefit a TON from Democratic tax proposals. But... what if someday THEY are in the top 1%? They wouldn't want high taxes THEN!

Nevermind none of them will ever get to that point. Nevermind none of them have any initiative or even ideas of how to get to that point (with a few minor exceptions - see the Loomis Fargo Hillbilly Heist for a very stupid example). The lottery is up really high right now and they could win it and STILL not be in the top 1%. I don't think they have any idea at all of what the 1% IS. 

But maybe someday! And they wouldn't want the gubmint taking their money and giving to those lazy people who don't want to work... (and who happen to be POC, totally a coincidence, of course. But their cousin-sister doesn't count because she's got a bad back you know and she NEEDs the help to feed her 6 kids, and mama deserves it because daddy worked hard his whole life...)

[GreyhoundFan]

I don't care for Stephanie Grisham and won't pay to buy her book, but I am putting myself on the library list because it seems like she's going to spill lots of tea: "Trump played tough with Putin when cameras were around, but a new book details his insecurities"

Quote

Little is known about what happened in the 90-minute conversation between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Osaka, Japan, two years ago. But as journalists were quickly ushered out of the room at the 2019 Group of 20 Summit, Stephanie Grisham once again found herself with a close-up view of the action.

She saw Trump lean toward Putin that day and tell him: “Okay, I’m going to act a little tougher with you for a few minutes. But it’s for the cameras, and after they leave, we’ll talk. You understand.”

It’s just one of many telling interactions detailed by Grisham in her new book, titled, “I’ll Take Your Questions Now.” One of the most senior and longest-serving Trump advisers, she worked as the president’s third press secretary and as first lady Melania Trump’s chief of staff and communications director before she resigned on Jan. 6 during the Capitol riot.

Her 352-page book — obtained by The Washington Post — alleges a litany of misdeeds by the 45th president: from ogling a young female staffer, to orchestrating lies for the public, to attempting to ban the news media from the White House compound. It also gives a rare firsthand look at Melania Trump, who craved her privacy, and a blow-by-blow of how she wound up wearing that “I Really Don’t Care, Do U?” jacket.

Grisham even claims to know dirt on Trump’s hair, which she says he cuts himself with “a huge pair of scissors that could probably cut a ribbon at an opening of one of his properties.”

“The intent behind this book is obvious,” Melania Trump’s office said in a statement after a passage leaked comparing the former first lady to Marie Antoinette. “It is an attempt to redeem herself after a poor performance as press secretary, failed personal relationships, and unprofessional behavior in the White House. Through mistruth and betrayal, she seeks to gain relevance and money at the expense of Mrs. Trump.”

Likewise, the former president responded to the book with a statement that tossed accusations back at Grisham. “This book is another pitiful attempt to cash in on the President’s strength and sell lies about the Trump family,” said Trump’s spokeswoman Liz Harrington. She called Grisham “a disgruntled former employee” and said publishers “should be ashamed of themselves for preying on desperate people who see the short term gain in writing a book full of falsehoods.”

As press secretary, Grisham was often unresponsive, and never once held a news briefing. Former colleagues said she was irregularly in the office during her last year in the White House, when she caught the coronavirus while serving as press secretary at the start of the pandemic, then transitioned to being the first lady’s chief of staff.

But Grisham is undeniably one of the Trump originals. She was wrangling reporters on the campaign plane in 2016, before working her way into the Trumps’ inner circles. And she is still viewed widely as a consummate Trump insider.

In Grisham’s telling, Putin seemed to be attempting to throw Trump off his game in Osaka. She writes that Fiona Hill, the White House’s top Russia adviser, told her that Putin brought to their meeting an unusually attractive female translator, whose presence seemed intended to distract the U.S. president.

Putin also seemed to be coughing and clearing his throat an inordinate number of times throughout the meeting. Hill speculated to Grisham that he was probably attempting to trigger Trump’s well-known germaphobe tendencies, Grisham writes.

A major theme of the book is the culture of lies that pervaded Trump’s administration. “Casual dishonesty filtered through the White House as if it were in the air conditioning system,” Grisham writes.

For example, in 2019, Trump went to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center without disclosing to the media that he was going, or why.

It was a days-long mystery in the national news, but Grisham’s book strongly hints that the president went for a simple colonoscopy, without actually using the word. (She wrote that it was “a very common procedure” for which “a patient is sometimes put under” and that George W. Bush had one as president, too.)

As for the elaborate concealment — Grisham writes that Trump was resistant to having Vice President Mike Pence in power even for a short period of time, and he didn’t want to be “the butt of a joke” on late-night TV.

Trump could have used the power of his office to demystify colonoscopies and save lives, Grisham writes. “But as with covid, he was too wrapped up in his own ego and his own delusions about his invincibility.”

Grisham also discloses that Trump didn’t want to ban travel to China in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, despite his later claims that he did. Grisham writes that “the upcoming election influenced every decision Trump made about the pandemic.”

But other times, Grisham writes, White House crises had as much to do with incompetence as dishonesty.

She offers a new interpretation of the notorious September 2019 incident known as Sharpiegate. It apparently all began with Trump refusing to believe a report that Hurricane Dorian had altered its course and was no longer projected to strike Alabama. To make his point, Grisham writes, the president grabbed a Sharpie during a staff meeting and drew on a weather map, altering the hurricane’s course to show it slamming into the state.

Then someone ushered the media into the room, forgetting that the doctored map was still on display. Trump kept pointing at the map as he spoke to reporters, making it seem like he was intentionally misleading them.

Sometimes the staff even lied to Trump. When President George H.W. Bush died, the staff arranged for the former president’s family to have use of Air Force One, as is customary, but obscured most of the details from Trump for fear of his reaction. The airplane was used to carry Bush’s service dog, Sully, his family and his casket to the funeral.

“We knew he wouldn’t be okay with that, even for a brief trip,” Grisham writes. “Dead bodies, death, sickness — those things really seemed to creep him out.” He was also not a fan of the Bushes and vice versa.

Grisham alleges that Trump became obsessed with a young, female press aide who isn’t named in the book. The president constantly asked where the aide was during press events, Grisham wrote, and allegedly once requested that she be brought to his cabin on Air Force One so he could “look at her [behind].”

Trump behaved inappropriately with Grisham, too, she wrote — once calling her from Air Force One to assure her that his penis was not small or toadstool-shaped, as the porn star Stormy Daniels had alleged in an interview.

Grisham wrote that Trump once asked her then-boyfriend, a fellow Trump aide, if she was good in bed.

She is particularly negative about the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner — both of whom held senior White House positions. She wrote that the first lady and White House staff called Ivanka “the Princess” who regularly invoked “my father” in work meetings, and Grisham dubbed Kushner “the Slim Reaper” for his habit of inserting himself into other people’s projects, making a mess and leaving them to take the blame.

Tellingly, Grisham writes that Ivanka and Jared tried to push their way into meeting Queen Elizabeth II alongside the president and first lady, a wild breach of protocol on a state visit, but were thwarted when they couldn’t fit into the helicopter. “I finally figured out what was going on,” Grisham writes. “Jared and Ivanka thought they were the royal family of the United States.”

“I had shared with Mrs. Trump many times my opinion that if we lost reelection in 2020 it would be because of Jared,” Grisham writes. “She didn’t disagree with me.”

By the end of the administration, Grisham says, Kushner was Trump’s “real chief of staff.” He sat next to Pence, the vice president and the newly named head of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and ran the first meeting about what Trump should say to the nation about the pandemic. He also apparently dictated much of the president’s first widely criticized televised address about the pandemic — the one that announced travel restrictions before alerting the federal agencies who would have to implement them.

The culture of dishonesty extends to that infamous day Melania Trump wore a jacket reading, “I Really Don’t Care, Do U?” while traveling to visit migrant children at the Texas-Mexico border. Grisham devotes an entire chapter to the saga.

The first lady had been upset by the situation her husband’s immigration policies had caused and wanted to see it for herself. For reasons that still remain a mystery, she’d ordered a $39 jacket online from Zara. Grisham said she was on her phone ironing out details for the trip and missed the chance to stop Melania Trump from wearing it.

It was just a jacket, Melania said, as she huddled with Grisham for a damage-control session on the plane. As they arrived back at the White House, an aide told them the president wanted to see his wife in the Oval Office. It was the first time he’d ever summoned her in such a way in front of staff. He yelled and asked “what the [expletive]” they thought they were doing. Then just as quickly he came up with a solution. He would tweet out that the jacket was a message to the Fake News Media.

It’s the story that the first lady repeated four months later in her first and only televised interview during the administration.

The Melania Trump whom Grisham describes is as stubborn as her husband, but his temperamental opposite. She believed in self-care so much that she’d change into a robe and slippers almost immediately upon boarding Air Force One. Self-consciousness around her accent and her English grammar meant she rarely wrote anything on her own.

The Secret Service gave her a nickname, “Rapunzel,” because she rarely left her tower, a.k.a the White House residence. Agents would request to be placed on her detail so they could spend more time with their families, Grisham writes.

If she wasn’t spending time with her son, Barron, or her parents, she was working on her photo albums, which Grisham calls one of “her two children.” Deep into the pandemic, she spent two hours recreating the ribbon-cutting for the White House tennis pavilion because she hadn’t gotten the right shot weeks earlier. She was working on a photo shoot of a rug during the Capitol riot.

The airing of Trump’s alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels is what “unleashed” Melania Trump to start publicly contradicting or ignoring her husband — trying to embarrass him as he had embarrassed her. She walked into his first State of the Union address arm-in-arm with a handsome military aide Grisham had hand-selected because, Melania said, the floors of the Capitol were too slippery.

“I laughed to myself because I’d seen the woman navigate dirt roads in her heels,” Grisham writes.

And when Grisham drafted a tweet for Melania requesting privacy, saying she was concentrating on being a mother, wife and first lady, she had Grisham remove the word “wife.”

What the scandal didn’t unleash was an emotional reaction. Grisham wrote that Melania Trump didn’t believe her husband’s denials of the affair, but essentially shrugged it all off:“This is Donald’s problem. He got himself into this mess. He can fix it by himself.”

By the end of the administration, Grisham writes, the first lady was so checked out that she slept through election night, as hundreds gathered in the White House for a party Melania had strenuously objected to — given the potential for another coronavirus outbreak at the White House.

Melania wasn’t entirely removed from politics, though. Grisham writes that the first lady intimated that she thought the 2020 election was illegitimate — that “something bad happened.”

She went along with Trump’s plan to snub Jill Biden rather than invite her over to the traditional first ladies tea welcoming her to the White House, according to Grisham.

And the first lady also pointed out how she’d been criticized for not standing next to Trump the way Jill Biden stood next to her husband on election night. “She said, ‘I don’t stand next to him because I don’t need to hold him up like she does. Can you imagine?’ ” Grisham writes. “That made me laugh.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I bet TFG is having a hissy fit: "Trump Loses Case to Enforce Omarosa Manigault Newman’s N.D.A."

Quote

Former President Donald J. Trump has lost an effort to enforce a nondisclosure agreement against Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide and a star on “The Apprentice” who wrote a tell-all book about serving in his administration.

The decision in the case, which Mr. Trump’s campaign filed in August 2018 with the American Arbitration Association in New York, comes as the former president is enmeshed in a number of investigations and legal cases related to his private company.

“Donald has used this type of vexatious litigation to intimidate, harass and bully for years,” Ms. Manigault Newman said in a statement. “Finally the bully has met his match!”

The decision, dated on Friday and handed down on Monday, calls for her to collect legal fees from the Trump campaign.

Mr. Trump’s campaign filed the case shortly after Ms. Manigault Newman published her book, “Unhinged.” It claimed that she violated a nondisclosure agreement she had signed during the 2016 campaign stipulating that she would not reveal private or confidential information about his family, business or personal life.

The book paints a picture of an out-of-control president who is in a state of mental decline and is prone to racist and misogynistic behavior. Ms. Manigault Newman’s book also casts the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in a negative light. When Trump advisers tried to cast doubt on Ms. Manigault Newman’s accounts, she released audio recordings that backed up several of her claims.

In a statement on Tuesday morning, Mr. Trump said nothing about the arbitration case, and instead attacked Ms. Manigault Newman in personal terms.

The media- and image-obsessed Mr. Trump has for years used nondisclosure agreements as a way to prevent staff members from speaking about him publicly, and to deter them from making disparaging comments or writing books like Ms. Manigault Newman’s.

The arbitration is confidential, meaning that only the parties involved can release information about the case. In papers made available by Ms. Manigault Newman’s lawyer, John Phillips, the arbitrator, Andrew Brown, said that the definition of the type of comment protected by the nondisclosure agreement was so vague that it had been rendered meaningless. What was more, he wrote, the statements Ms. Manigault Newman had made hardly included privileged information.

“The statements do not disclose hard data such as internal polling results or donor financial information,” Mr. Brown wrote. “Rather, they are for the most part simply expressions of unflattering opinions, which are deemed ‘confidential information’ based solely upon the designation of Mr. Trump. This is exactly the kind of indefiniteness which New York courts do not allow to form the terms of a binding contract.”

At another point, Mr. Brown wrote that the agreement “effectively imposes on Respondent an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, his family or his or his family members’ businesses for the rest of her life.”

The arbitrator added, “Such a burden is certainly unreasonable.”

Mr. Phillips, who is based in Florida, said the lawsuit had been an abuse of power by a sitting president. “It’s over,” he said. “We’ve won in Donald Trump and the Trump campaign’s chosen forum.”

Arbitration decisions do not create a precedent, according to Shira A. Scheindlin, a retired Federal District Court judge for the Southern District of New York. That means that there is no potential impact from the Manigault Newman case on ones filed against other Trump employees.

However, a ruling in one case “may be persuasive” in another, said Cliff Palefsky, a lawyer in San Francisco who is an expert in the arbitration process. In the decision in Ms. Manigault Newman’s case, the arbitrator referred to a ruling in a class-action suit filed in New York by a former Trump campaign aide, Jessica Denson. In that case, a judge ruled that the Trump campaign’s nondisclosure agreements were not enforceable.

The decision in the Denson case and the arbitration decision in Ms. Manigault Newman’s case are both blows to Mr. Trump’s reliance on nondisclosure agreements as a way to intimidate former aides.

The decision was made public a week before a new book by Stephanie Grisham, one of Mr. Trump’s former White House press secretaries, will be released. The book paints a deeply unflattering portrait of Mr. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump.

Charles Harder, the defamation lawyer who had represented the Trumps over the years and who was handling Ms. Manigault Newman’s arbitration case, parted ways with the Trumps before the decision was issued.

The decision cannot be appealed, other than on the basis of fraud alleged against the arbitrator who heard the case. That leaves Mr. Trump with little recourse for continuing to pursue an action against his former aide.

 

[Xan]

13 hours ago, fraurosena said:

So what are they saying about the tax windfalls Biden is proposing for the mid- and lower incomes by taxing the top 1%?

Biden is a Democrat.  They don't trust him.  If they want to be sure their taxes don't go up, they need a Republican in there.

Yeah, it makes no logical sense.  But, then, today's Republicans never make sense.

[SassyPants]

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

For a lot of them it's aspirational thinking. 

Sure, they would benefit a TON from Democratic tax proposals. But... what if someday THEY are in the top 1%? They wouldn't want high taxes THEN!

Nevermind none of them will ever get to that point. Nevermind none of them have any initiative or even ideas of how to get to that point (with a few minor exceptions - see the Loomis Fargo Hillbilly Heist for a very stupid example). The lottery is up really high right now and they could win it and STILL not be in the top 1%. I don't think they have any idea at all of what the 1% IS. 

But maybe someday! And they wouldn't want the gubmint taking their money and giving to those lazy people who don't want to work... (and who happen to be POC, totally a coincidence, of course. But their cousin-sister doesn't count because she's got a bad back you know and she NEEDs the help to feed her 6 kids, and mama deserves it because daddy worked hard his whole life...)

The cognitive dissonance is strong. Can they not connect the dots that as a middle class or lower wage earner the tax codes are stacked against you such that you’ll NEVER Abe able to achieve the upper echelons? Why should those with little have to pay the bills, while the wealthy, silver spooned crowd has the power to affect legislation that allows them to never pay for anything?

It’s basic Math, folks.

[Dandruff]

3 hours ago, SassyPants said:

My thoughts re prayer in public school. If you want prayer and/or religion included in your child’s education, there is a place where you can get it. It’s called private school, and it costs money. You want that, open your pocketbook, pull on your bootstraps and PAY FOR IT. Decisions and choices have consequences. Put your money where your religious beliefs exist, and stop looking for the government to solve your problems 😂

I think most of the push for it is because they want prayer and religion included in other children's educations.

[Ozlsn]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Deep into the pandemic, she spent two hours recreating the ribbon-cutting for the White House tennis pavilion because she hadn’t gotten the right shot weeks earlier. She was working on a photo shoot of a rug during the Capitol riot.

... I realise that not all First Ladies have been politically involved but that comes across as amazingly vacuous to me. Marie Antoinette level of obliviousness before the revolutionaries rocked up.

13 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“Donald has used this type of vexatious litigation to intimidate, harass and bully for years,” Ms. Manigault Newman said in a statement. “Finally the bully has met his match!”

I had totally forgotten she was ever on staff, and yet am somehow not surprised she managed to win that case.

[Alisamer]

19 hours ago, Dandruff said:

I think most of the push for it is because they want prayer and religion included in other children's educations.

That's it exactly. Because they only want their own specific type of religion and prayer to be in school. If prayer and religion were mandated in schools like they think they want, they'd have an immediate freakout about it as soon as a Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Catholic, Mormon, etc. teacher shared their religion with the children. They want to push their religion on others, but would absolutely go apeshit if someone tried to push a different religion on them or their children. 

That's why I think separation of church and state is so crucial, and is also in the end inevitable particularly in the US. 

Imagine if religious observances and prayer become mandated in schools... the outcry will start and the divisions will begin immediately. At first it'll be about accommodating various religions. Muslim students will naturally want to follow their own teachings about how and when to pray. Jewish students will expect to celebrate and/or have days off for Jewish holidays and observances. Muslim and students of other religions will expect the same. Wiccan and most pagan students are going to want the solstices and equinoxes off, I would think, and would want to observe their own traditions. I don't know what satanists have for holidays but they will, rightfully, demand to observe them.

If all that got squashed and everything became enforced Christianity, then other divisions and outcry will start up. There are thirty protestant churches in every small town because nobody can agree on doctrine. Rote prayers or improv? Trespasses or debts? Which version of the Bible? Sprinkle or dunk? Infant baptism or no? Kneeling or just bowing heads to pray? Celebrate Christmas or not? Music with a beat - sinful or celebratory?

The people wanting "prayer in schools" mostly don't really want "prayer" in schools. They want their own specific variety of christianity forced on other people's children. They'd have conniptions if the prayer involved facing Mecca, or the teacher taught how to use sage to smudge a room, or a Jehovah's Witness teacher forbade celebrating birthdays and holidays, or a Remnant teacher gave their kids all eating disorders.

[Howl]

Trump loses case against Omarosa Manigault Newman, who wrote tell-all White House book   "It’s over. We’ve won in Donald Trump and the Trump Campaign’s chosen forum," her attorney said.

Quote

The arbitrator, T. Andrew Brown, said in the ruling that the terms of the nondisclosure agreement were "highly problematic" because it did not adhere to typical legal standards, describing it as "vague, indefinite, and therefore void and unenforceable."

"The Agreement effectively imposes on [Manigault Newman] an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, his family or his or his family members' businesses for the rest of her life," Brown said in the ruling.

The article doesn't name the lawyer(s) who set up this NDA, or if was simply a boilerplate NDA that was forced on WH aides and others. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Howl

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

20 hours ago, Howl said:

Trump loses case against Omarosa Manigault Newman, who wrote tell-all White House book   "It’s over. We’ve won in Donald Trump and the Trump Campaign’s chosen forum," her attorney said.

The article doesn't name the lawyer(s) who set up this NDA, or if was simply a boilerplate NDA that was forced on WH aides and others. 

And that, kids, is why you should not get yourself a reputation for constantly stiffing lawyers on their fees.  Eventually no good attorneys will handle your cases and you end up with Rootin' Tootin' Rudy, The Krakken Team, and some unnamed attorney who does a google search for "NDA" and picks the first one that pops up.  I bet every attorney whose fees Dolt 45 ignored is enjoying the ongoing train of karma rolling over him now that he can't get a decent lawyer.  Hell, Lionel Hutz wouldn't touch him these days. 

[fraurosena]

21 hours ago, Howl said:

The Agreement effectively imposes on [Manigault Newman] an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, his family or his or his family members' businesses for the rest of her life," Brown said in the ruling

Ooooh, this creates precedent for all others who've signed NDA's with Trump...

*starts chomping on popcorn*

[47of74]

Fuck face made a speech on March 11 last year about the pandemic. It didn’t go well. 

Quote

A new memoir from the Trump White House’s communications director offers a backstory to that disastrous presidential address. The whole thing was Ivanka Trump’s idea, Stephanie Grisham writes in I’ll Take Your Questions Now. An excerpt of the book, which goes on sale next week, was published by Politico on Friday morning. 

Grisham, who describes the Trump White House as “a clown car on fire running at full speed into a warehouse full of fireworks,” served as Melania Trump’s press secretary and later her chief of staff. In between, she worked as the White House’s communications director, a position she likened to “sitting in a beautiful office while a sprinkler system pours water down on you every second and ruins everything on your desk.”

The Oval Office address, Grisham writes, was “a total clusterf— from start to finish because Ivanka and her crew wanted her father to be on TV.”

Yeah a burning clown car going full speed towards a warehouse full of explosives is a pretty accurate description of the fuck knob White House. 

[Jana814]

53 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

 

Yeah a burning clown car going full speed towards a warehouse full of explosives is a pretty accurate description of the fuck knob White House. 

Yet I know a lot of people who think he’s the greatest president their ever was & his wife is the classiest First Lady their ever was. 

[Cartmann99]

Trump asks judge to force Twitter to lift ban

Quote

Trump’s attorneys on Friday filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Twitter and its CEO Jack Dorsey. The filing states that Twitter had been “coerced” into banning Trump.

“Coerced by members of the United States Congress, operating under an unconstitutional immunity granted by a permissive federal statute, and acting directly with federal officials, Defendant is censoring Plaintiff, a former President of the United States,” the filing reads.

Twitter declined to comment on the filing. 

 

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

On 10/2/2021 at 12:01 PM, Cartmann99 said:

Trump asks judge to force Twitter to lift ban

 

Imagine having once been someone who made cameos in movies; was in commercials; “wrote” a bestselling book; had a name synonymous with extreme wealth; had a successful television show that lasted several seasons; and was considered by many to be a very savvy businessman only to have the entire facade fall to shambles by being too foolish to understand that getting into politics is a world far beyond his limited abilities. Now he no longer has any kind of real platform on an international or national stage and has to beg for his Twitter privileges to be returned. If he had a smidge of shame or self-reflection he might be embarrassed; however as a likely narcissist he is probably rage spiraling. Just think- if he had never taken that performative elevator ride, he would likely still be spinning out his show; enjoying his tangential Hollywood connections; and sitting in his golden penthouse. 

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, AlmostSavedAtTacoBell said:

Imagine having once been someone who made cameos in movies; was in commercials; “wrote” a bestselling book; had a name synonymous with extreme wealth; had a successful television show that lasted several seasons; and was considered by many to be a very savvy businessman only to have the entire facade fall to shambles by being too foolish to understand that getting into politics is a world far beyond his limited abilities. Now he no longer has any kind of real platform on an international or national stage and has to beg for his Twitter privileges to be returned. If he had a smidge of shame or self-reflection he might be embarrassed; however as a likely narcissist he is probably rage spiraling. Just think- if he had never taken that performative elevator ride, he would likely still be spinning out his show; enjoying his tangential Hollywood connections; and sitting in his golden penthouse. 

I continue to be impressed with Twitter.  Their revocation of privileges emphasizes the "F" in TFG.  It's hard to pretend to be leading in exile without wide access to one's supposed subjects.

Too bad the platforms initiated by his like-minded haven't gotten the job done and that judges have been properly judging.  He lacks the power to grab what he wants and I'm sure it's weighing on him.

When are his huge loans coming due?  What kind of influence does he need to potentially negotiate with those he owes?  Why is he trying to force Twitter now?

[Cartmann99]

[Ozlsn]

So the first attempt at Making America Great Again obviously failed... why would you sign on for round two?

Also I'm slightly surprised they didn't go with "Make America Greatlier" given his stellar command of the English language.

[BensAllergies]

What a mouthful of nonsense. They should have combined platforms and gone with Make America Best.

[Audrey2]

A rebranded title? Moreerchandise to sell his sheeple!

[Cartmann99]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Continued here: