Bill Maher's $1 Million Offer For Trump To Resign May Be Best Way To Get Rid of the Loathsome Orange Cockroach

Wonder of wonders, President Donald J. Trump, aka Capt. Bonespurs,  said on Saturday that he would no longer hold next year’s Group of 7 meeting at his luxury golf club near Miami, a swift reversal after two days of intense criticism over awarding his family company a major diplomatic event.

Did Donnie Bonespurs do this out of a sober acknowledgement he was violating the domestic emoluments clause against presidential self- dealing?  I.e. selecting his own property as the venue for a major diplomatic event, and thus a "decision unprecedented in modern American politics with a president awarding himself a massive contract." (WaPo, Saturday).  

Of course not. This pinhead spouted about the "phony emoluments clause".  What do you expect from a dolt  that  has never read the Constitution and struggles with a 'Garfield' comic?  All Dotard knows is self dealing and hence actively embraces his own narcissism directed to self- enrichment. That is the sum and substance of his miserable existence.  If he can't make a deal that benefits himself he wants no part of it.   And bear in mind, like most grifters and criminal con men his "deals" are always inflated, exaggerated.  An AP examination of Trump's Twitter feed turned up 1,200 mentions of the words "biggest,", "smartest",  and "best".  (Denver Post, Oct. 20, p. 7A,  'With Trump It's Always 'The Art of the Big Deal'")  In his most recent transgression Trump claimed a crowd of 30,000 for a rally crowd in Dallas.  The Dallas Fire-Rescue Dept. made an actual count of 18,500 or below the 20,000 capacity of the American Airlines Center and 38.3 percent less than Trump claimed.

Why does this deranged man-baby employ such excess claims, hell outright LIES? Because like all practicing con men he understands that employing them is the best hook to sucker the gullible, lower IQ segment of the populace.  Thus, rather than offering solace to the Kurds slaughtered in the wake of his unseemly withdrawal of U.S. troops in N. Iraq, he chose to brag on his "deal"  as a "great day for civilization".  In fact, it was among the worst, and put a rubber stamp on allies' justified suspicion of the U.S. as credible partner in most global initiatives.

But as odious as Trump's withdrawal from Syria, it was not an impeachable offense.  However, his self- dealing to enrich himself via his Doral resort was.  As blogger Robert Weissman put it on smirkingchimp.com:

"President Donald Trump no longer sees fit even to pretend that he is constrained by the law or the U.S. Constitution. It’s hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the Constitution’s anti-corruption provisions than the president steering foreign governments to stay at his luxury resort.."

Nevertheless it took a firestorm of outrage to get  him to retract his decision, and even then it was done grudgingly and rife with serial insults and complaints at any critics.

 Trump wrote on Twitter  over the weekend, interspersing one tweet with the usual hyperbole, exaggerations and BS:

“I thought I was doing something very good for our country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 leaders.  It is  big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms and meeting rooms and each delegation would have ...its own 50 to 70 unit building.  Would set up better than other alternatives."

Let's pause here to note this is all horse manure   As Chris Hayes' guests pointed out on 'All In' Thursday, all the costs vis-a-vis Trump's Doral resort are already "sunk" - meaning underwater. In debt up to Miami's tallest condo. The Doral has struggled financially since the Trump family bought the resort out of bankruptcy in 2012, reportedly paying $150 million for the property. More than $100 million in loans to help finance the project came from Deutsche Bank. The property itself - as noted by Hayes -  has also been plagued with "flying vermin"  and had some not too good inspection reports of its facilities.

Given the conditions and  debt status at Doral,  having hundreds of  personnel from G7 advance teams first arrive to check it out and then return in June with their full delegations,  would merely provide a rescue for Trump to dig his sorry ass out of a financial hole. Problem is that G7 bunch would land in the midst of Miami's worst mosquito season - as noted by Hayes' guest Natasha Bertrand.  So, Trump isn't doing any "good" other for himself.  And as Ms. Bertrand also agreed,  any number of other places would be far superior alternatives.

Trump then carried on in his loopy rant tweet:

"I announced I would be willing to do it at no profit, or if legally possible at ZERO COST to the USA. But, as usual, the Hostile Media & Democrat partners went CRAZY!”

Ok, let's back up again to shovel more horse shit before moving on.  As Bertrand also reminded viewers there is no way profits would not accrue from the choice of the Trump dump. Especially as the arriving dignitaries would need several helipads - likely provided on the golf course. After the conference the helipads would then need to be removed and the golf course restored - all at cost to U.S. taxpayers.   Far from "going crazy" too many realized the fell, unconstitutional nature of Dotard's proposal and took him to task for it. Democrats (and many newspaper editors, e.g. The Denver Post)  immediately portrayed the plan as a blatant act of self-dealing corruption, and ethics lawyers said payments from the visiting delegations could violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which forbids the president from accepting gifts and funding from foreign governments.

Democrats in the House and Senate - to their credit- quickly introduced legislation intended to block the use of the Doral, a bill they called “Trump’s Heist Undermines the G7,” or the THUG  Act. The measure would have blocked the use of federal funds for the Group of 7 if the event were held at the Doral.

 The one who is crazy then, is Trump - for not grasping that is how his wacky nonsense would be received.

The fact this deranged  asswipe and certifiable moron could even be serious enough to write this claptrap shows he belongs in a straitjacket.  Do the country a favor? By letting foreign nationals stay at his flea and bed bug, mosquito -ridden dump that passes as a "resort"?  And then making the dignitaries pay for the privilege - to line his own pockets, of course.  (But one wonders if he'd pay their medical bills if they contracted dengue fever from a mosquito bite)

Trump added: “Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020.”

In the wake of what we've seen the past week, let us accept as a proposition that things will only get worse in the next year - especially with impeachment hanging over Trump's head.   As NY Times political columnist Peter Wehner put it on 'Last Word' Friday night:

"Republicans to whom I've spoken have known from the start that this is a person who's really problematic, psychologically unwell. At the beginning it was wishful thinking that they could contain or control him... What's happening now is Trump's pathologies are getting worse  and the guardrails are disappearing. So what we're seeing now is the worst of Trump, but it's going to get worse going forward."

The problem is that if his Senate cult followers then fail to remove him, he will become vastly more emboldened and make even more atrocious decisions- say than the Kurd betrayal, the Ukraine shake down call to dig dirt on political opponents, and the Doral G-7 self dealing .  As WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus said on 'Last Word' Friday night, when asked if the "dam" would finally break in the wake of the week's events:

"No. The Republican lawmakers will just stick with Trump. They have a 'me first' approach and fear Trump's base and being primaried. Until Republican voters turn against Trump it is very very dangerous - no matter what they privately think, say about Trump giving himself this big contract, or Trump in Syria. So they're not going to break with him in public."

This fear is also what led HBO ('Real Time') comedian Bill Maher to warn at the end of September of the potential political ramifications of pursuing Trump's impeachment, but failing to remove him. As he observed:

"If we do this, the country is going to be paralyzed.  I'm not saying don't. ... It's going to be paralyzed for a very long time, and all of the oxygen in the room will be taken by this," 

But then voicing the much more ominous danger of the GOP -dominated Senate failing to do its constitutional duty to remove the thug (which requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes.)  So what other alternative is there, short of invoking the 25th amendment (even more improbable), or Trump losing the election next year.? (Still not a slam dunk by any means.)  And we know how the Trump cabal will stoke the "fear the socialists" meme.

By Friday night, Maher had conceived of potentially the only real solution to eliminate the orange fungal parasite and blight on the Republic.    He offered to pay  $1 million for the orange mold to leave the office. (Which in truth he ought to seriously consider after Admiral William H. McRaven torched the traitor in a NY Times op ed and accused him of being a "threat to the Republic".)

Maher, a long-standing Dotard critic who actually got a Trump-filed  lawsuit tossed out (after he vowed he could prove Trump was the spawn of an Orangutan) said:

"Just take my check for $1 million. I bet I could get another 1,000 people just from here to the beach — including Malibu, of course — who would pay that much to see you resign," 

Bill  concluded, "Mr. President, it is really very simple. You love money. We hate you."

At first blush I agree with Maher this plan could work - knowing Trump's mendacious nature. But is $1 million enough to get Trump to move his fat ass out of the Oval Office for good?  I doubt it. I suspect it would take at least $100 million - and I doubt all the actors' contributions in Hollywood would make that threshold.   Besides, most would- be contributors would justifiably worry that this slimeball would renege. After all, look how he stabbed the Kurds in the back barely a week ago.  He'd probably do the same for this effort then holler at one of his rallies: "Ya see what I did to them dumb liberals and Dems! I stiffed 'em good!"

So we are stuck with hoping, as Marcus went on to say, that the polls favoring Trump's impeachment and removal hit at least 52-55 % of Republican voters to force the Repuke Senators to have their 'come to Jesus' moment and ditch the Dotard.

Either  that, or find a candidate who can beat him next year in the general.

See also:

Robert Weissman

Donald Trump

The Antidote to Trump's Corrupt G7 Deal? Impeachment and Conviction

What Would My Revolutionary War Ancestors Think Of Our Nation's Present Predicament?

There is little doubt that Jacob and Conrad Brumbaugh, knowing what the rest of us know concerning Trump, would regard him as a traitor no different from Benedict Arnold.



With the Independence Day celebrations tomorrow, I thought it might be instructive to consider what my ancestors Jacob and Conrad  Brumbaugh - both of whom fought in the War of Independence- might think of our situation and Trump.  I ought to take time here to applaud Janice's notable efforts in finding the connections to  Jacob Jockel and Conrad as well as intervening generations, while doing research at Ancestry.com.

It was Janice's fine efforts which first turned up Eliza Ann Brumbaugh,  my paternal great grandmother, with her marriage certificate  dated Nov. 20, 1881- marriage to my great grandfather Phillip Adam Stahl.  From there, and getting hold of the book, 'The Genealogy of the Brumbaughs',  she could track back four generations to Jacob 'Jockel' Brumbaugh, and younger brothers Conrad, George, and Johann. It was Jacob and Conrad who fought in the Pennsylvania Militia during the American Revolution.

Specifically, Jacob Jockel Brumbaugh served as a Private, Seventh class, 4th Company of the First Battalion, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Militia.   Conrad served as a Private in Capt. John Orbison's Fourth Company, Fourth Battalion of the Cumberland County Militia - commanded by Col. Samuel Culbertson. Jacob and Conrad knew what they were fighting for:  home and country -   against a tyrant King (George III) and his whole gang of Redcoats.

However, there is no doubt at all that neither Jacob or Conrad - if confronted by today's appalling events and our dear "leader"- would wonder why the War of Independence had been fought at all. That is,  given so much liberty and a thriving nascent Republic appeared to have been so easily sacrificed to a latter day "Mad King George".  Only now in the odious person of a grifter-made billionaire named Donald Drumpf. And one in conspiracy with a hostile foreign power which clearly helped put him into office.

As James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, noted in a recent TIME interview:

"Of course the Russian efforts affected the outcome. Surprising themselves, they swung the election to a Trump win. To conclude otherwise stretches logic, common sense and credulity to the breaking point.  Less than eighty thousand votes in three key states swung the election, I have no doubt that more votes than that were influenced by this massive effort by the Russians."

Both Jacob and Conrad would no doubt have weighed Clapper's words carefully, but also examined the deep background as turned up by the extensive reporting in  The New Republic (Aug./Sept. p. 29) to wit:

"A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, or even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money .....Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics....It's entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters."

The ongoing, deplorable actions of the White House occupant would also have angered and appalled both brothers, e.g.   the flouting of the emoluments clause in the Constitution by Trump and his family, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/lawsuits-against-trump-for-emoluments.html

Neither Jacob or Conrad would have taken kindly to Trump's  continual reliance on rallies for his base, inciting their passions and presenting further evidence for the 'mischief of faction'  Madison warned about whereby "citizens - whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole - are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion (to cast their votes) adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". 

This is exactly what the Trump voters did, motivated by passion and recklessness via Trump's often violent rallies to give a middle finger salute to the rest of the country - thereby militating against the majority's interests.  It is also what Trump's pandering to his base continues to do.  I suspect Conrad would be most exasperated at Trump's betrayal of long time allies, while also pandering to hostile authoritarian regimes, including in Turkey, the Philippines, and North Korea- even saluting a N. Korean General, an action for which I can just imagine both Jacob Jockel and Conrad saying: "For that he should be hung!"

What about Trump's "zero tolerance" policy of locking up infants, toddlers in cages at "tender age shelters"?  Jacob and Conrad would have blown their respective gaskets: "In cages? Children?  This vile filth should not only be hung but drawn and quartered too! Is that what he would have done to us on entering this country from Germany?  To our brothers too? Swine!"

In the end, it's good neither Jacob or Conrad is able to see the travesty, betrayal and destruction to which our country has been subjected.  At the same time, if their spirits were still alive and energized, they'd be literally screaming "Do not go quietly into the despot's  dark night! Fight, fight for what is right though all looks lost! This country we fought for is more important than one man - or all his supporting liars,  quislings and followers!"

-----------------------------
Footnote:  It was Janice who reminded me that  Jacob Jockel also fought in the American Revolution, hence the edits made  to this post.

Why Is The Secret Service Protecting The Older Trump Boys?

The news on CBS this a.m. that taxpayers are saddled with footing the $100,000 bill for a recent Eric Trump skylark trip to South America - to cover Secret Service protection for the punk  - ought to have every red-blooded American up in arms. Mainly, WHY are we having to pay for any Secret Service protection for him to go galavanting or his brother Donald Jr.?

Eric Trump jetted to Uruguay in early January for a Trump Organization promotional trip, U.S. taxpayers were left footing a bill of nearly $100,000 in hotel rooms for Secret Service and embassy staff. WHY? Why isn't this rich little asshole paying his own freight?   Especially as the trip wasn't for any government business but enabling Eric to mingle with real estate brokers, dining at an open-air beachfront eatery and speaking to hundreds at an “ultra exclusive” Trump Tower Punta del Este evening party celebrating his visit. WHY did the S.S. have to go along at all? And - if the punk needed protection - why didn't he pay for his own bodyguards?

More specifically, Eric Trump's Uruguayan trip shows how the government has now become  unavoidably entangled with the Trump company as a result of the Donald's refusal to divest his ownership stake. In this case, government agencies are forced to pay to support business operations that ultimately help to enrich the president himself. Are any of Trump's groupies, who bitch, piss and moan about "welfare queens" and entitlements, paying any attention to these corporate welfare queens? 

This issue is germane, given Donald Jr. and Eric are now planning another jaunt - after opening a rich boy's palace in Dubai-  for a new Trump Tower in Vancouver, Canada. The total for both trips likely to run over a half million smackeroos to the U.S. taxpayer.   Kathleen Clark, an expert on government ethics and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, quoted in The Washington Post, observed:

"This is an example of the blurring of the line between the personal interest in the family business and the government,"

Bingo!  Which is why the whole Trump cabal ought to have been stopped cold turkey in December when the electors had the chance to do it by denying him the electoral votes.   But they abdicated their duty and put party over country, in allowing a two bit chiseling scalawag to become president and drag in his money-grubbing spawn with him - who now need Secret Service protection at U.S. taxpayer expense.

A huge casualty has been transparency despite the use of public funds. Hence, the affected government agencies have not provided key details connected to the Trump boys' trips, including the duration of the stays, the names of the hotels or the number of booked rooms. A spokesman from the Secret Service, citing security concerns, declined to comment. However what we do know is the Secret Service has the option not to partake of protection excursions if the latter are not specifically to do with government business.

A bit of background here: In 1917, Congress first authorized the then-Secret Service Division of the U.S. Treasury Department to protect the immediate family of the president. In 1984, a statute extended that protection for other key individuals, including the immediate family of the vice president. However, and this is important, this was not so the family members could go on jaunts designed to enrich their own family businesses. That is when protection became optional.

Thus the recent claim (ibid.) of W. Ralph Basham, former director of the service:

"The Secret Service does not have an option as to when it is, where it is, nor as to how much it costs, and whether it’s domestic or international. Think about the consequences of something happening to one of the children. The security of it outweighs the expenses of it.”

 May be true to a first approximation, but still doesn't controvert the fact that the S.S. protection itself is optional - and they can choose to do so or not. For whatever reason - maybe to enjoy some exotic sights - they have chosen to do so for the two Trump rich boys, Eric and Donald.  No one is saying - again- they might not need protection in these parlous times, only that they should pay for it themselves instead of doing it from the public purse.

All of this in concert affords more reasons why Trump's business entanglements need to be investigated in relation to the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Indeed, as Norm Eisen- a former Obama administration ethics adviser-- put it:

"Having refused to sever his own personal financial interests, [the president] is now sending his emissaries, his sons, out to line his own pockets, and he’s subsidizing that activity with taxpayer dollars,”

Eisen is now part of a lawsuit accusing Trump of violating a constitutional provision barring presidents from taking payments from foreign governments

At the very least, his two sons should not be galavanting to Trump Towers around the world with security paid by U.S. taxpayers.

Lawsuits Against Trump for "Emoluments" Need To Go Forward

Trump, about to face multiple lawsuits over his handling of business entanglements

The news that a citizen watchdog group (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)  on Monday filed a lawsuit  claiming that President Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by allowing his business to accept payments from foreign governments shouldn't have come as any surprise.  The lawsuit claims that a constitutional clause prohibits Trump from receiving money from diplomats for stays at his hotels or foreign governments for leases of office space in his buildings.

That clause is quite correct, as we read Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution stating that no American officeholder shall, “without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The clause is not a historical quirk. Gordon Wood, an American historian, argues that America’s founding fathers were obsessed with the problem of corruption, which they believed had doomed earlier republics. Hence, they inveighed against even the appearance of being "gifted" by foreign interests, nations.

Trump called the lawsuit “without merit, totally without merit” after he signed some of his first executive actions (not technically "orders"  since they've not been legally vetted) Monday in the Oval Office. But he is wrong, dead wrong.  It is fully with merit and he will learn in the ensuing months just how off base he is.

The watchdog group filed the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The group is being represented in part by two former White House chief ethics lawyers: Norman Eisen, who advised Barack Obama, and Richard Painter, who worked under George W. Bush. The two have expresse,d frustration that Trump has refused to take their recommendation and divest from his business, and feel they had no choice but to take legal action. The lawsuit at its core argues:

“As the Framers were aware, private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders,  and entanglements between American officials and foreign powers could pose a creeping, insidious threat to the Republic.”

At a news conference earlier this month, Trump Organization lawyer Sheri Dillon insisted that the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution isn’t meant to ban fair-value exchanges. "They didn’t think paying your hotel bill was an emolument,” she said.

But Dillon is wrong. When the hotel bill is paid by a foreign potentate or dignitary or office holder, and to a hotel that is owned by a President - then it IS an emolument.  So Sherri doesn't know what she's yapping about, clearly as uninformed as that mistress of misdirection Kellyanne Conway. And btw turning over these business interests to relatives like Jared Kushner, or Donald Jr.,  is not divesting.

That's why Harvard Law prof Lawrence Tribe was quite clear Monday night  on exactly why Trump is guilty of constitutional violations As he observed, after being asked to make his case:

"It's pretty easy. He's receiving benefits big time, of a financial kind from foreign governments all over the world. And that's illegal. It's what the emoluments clause forbids."

Prof. Tribe went on to elaborate the sources from foreign governments that are problematic:

"The first are leases, or private arrangements between businessman Trump and foreign governments. They are hotels, they are easements, all kinds of financial instruments, very intricate and complicated like a Matrushkan doll - inside one another. Corporations inside LLCs - all complicated ways of doing one thing and one thing only: funneling money to Donald Trump when foreign governments decide they want to benefit him in whatever way - whether expanding his Aberdeen golf course, or something else. it enriches him even if they don't pay top dollar for the hotel rooms.

The issue isn't how much they pay, but that they're paying anything. The Constitution basically says that if you're President of the United States you should not be in bed with business partners. Because if you are there is just no way for the American people to know when you make a deal with one of these countries, whether you're making it in the best interests of the country or you want Trump to be first"

To be specific, here are a few examples by geographic location:

- Trump Tower Mumbai, partnered with the Lodha Group whose chairman and founder (Mangal Prabhat) is  the VP of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). How do we know what favors Prabhat may curry from the Donald to secretly help advance the BJP? We don't. How do we know how many billions from the BJP may indirectly cross Trump's grubby palms? We don't.

- Trump partnered with Indonesian billionaire Hary Tanoesoedibja on management and branding deals for a resort and residential complex in Bali and a 1700 acre resort in West Java. Hary Tanoe as he's known locally, has been active in opposition parties against President Joko Widodo. Tanoe introduced Trump to several local politicians including one at the center of a corruption scandal. Trump's deals with Hary also entail Chinese and South Korean state-controlled companies.

- Dubai properties: Trump is involved with multiple deals with billionaire developer Hussain Ali Sajwani. Sajwani himself has engaged in several controversial land deals with senior officials in the United Arab Emirates .During Trump's recent news conference he actually admitted Sajwani offered him $2 billion worth of development deals in Dubai. The question elicited is: How do we know what Trump ISN'T telling us? We don't. Can we trust him to reveal all his deals and offers? I doubt it! The bastard is a congenital liar so you can't trust anything he blabbers or tweets.


 How should Trump solve his problem? Tribe again:

"All he has to do is dissolve his assets. He has to sell off his interest in the hotels, liquidate them and then convert them into assets that can be put into a genuinely blind trust. So he has no way of knowing which governments are greasing his palm. What he's done instead is simply put them behind a kind of one way mirror. He still has these properties but he says.  it's enough for them to be managed by his sons and a long time employee. That doesn't solve the problem at all, it just exacerbates it by creating an optical illusion that some people may be deceived by".

On the issue of  needing "Standing" to bring such a case, Tribe is equally clear:

"Well, the group is positively harmed by this labyrninthine maze of emoluments that the president is involved in It's whole mission is devoted to getting corruption out of government, especially where money is involved.  So it's having to use money and resources it could have used instead on shadowy political campaigns or other corruption. These now must be used going down the rabbit hole of tracking down all the mysterious ways Trump is enriching jhis empire, day by day. That's the kind of harm the Supreme Court, in a case called Haven's Realty gives you standjng to sue.

When Trump says the case has no merit, I wonder what constitutional law course he took but I don't think he knows what he's talking about".

In the end, the decision to hear the case will show whether we are still a nation of laws, or have mutated to become so lawless that we can't even recognize constitutional violations when they occur.

The group behind Monday’s lawsuit also filed a complaint Friday addressed to the General Services Administration, an agency that oversees the lease of the government-owned building that houses Trump’s new Washington hotel. The complaint, argued the agency,  must cancel the lease because it expressly forbids any elected official from benefiting from it.

GSA officials had said they needed to wait until Trump took office before weighing in on the issue. They have yet to issue an opinion, though, and have not responded to repeated requests for comment. Democrats in the House and Senate on Monday sent letters to Acting Administrator Timothy Horne seeking information about what the agency plans to do. One must hope Mr. Horne is not intimidated into inaction by the Trumpsters.

Are we a nation of laws or scofflaws?  The answer is contingent on whether Trump is held to account for his multiple, dangerous business entanglements - which fairly reek of potential corruption. How can we know, in deed, what nefarious deals he is making to enrich himself behind our backs? The argument from the likes of Sherri Dillon that he "shouldn't have to lose money" is insane bollocks. He ought to have thought of that before running for President!

If he didn't wish to "lose money" or profits by divesting from business assets, then he should have remained a real estate tycoon and developer and not campaigned for the Oval Office.  NO President has a God-given right to also be a billionaire and real estate tycoon!

Mr. Trump will now learn his own extensive Trump assets will be his likely downfall... IF we are a nation of laws and adhere to the Constitution.

"Why Trump Won" - Absolute Claptrap From Trumpkin Jon Caldara

Jon Caldara's accompaniment to his byline insists he is president of the Independence Institute , which has generally professed to be a non-partisan source of opinion, information. But from his latest piece ('And That's Why Trump Won',  Dec. 24) in The Denver Post, it's clear he's merely another pro-Trump PR moron trying to sell people baloney at cheapo rates.

Without reciting too much of his codswallop, he basically has the chutzpah to compare the crazy Right's indignation at Obama's election with the Left's reaction to Trump, with the dazzling distinction that

"I swear to God, no one I know of broke down in tears when Obama won"

Well, maybe because deep in their fake news heart of hearts they knew- when all was said and done- Obama was a rational, sane man, not a psychotic serial pussy grabber, two -bit chiseling, faux business weasel, racist xenophobe and authoritarian Hitler-esque narcissist.  For all the false claims (e.g. "socialist") the Right tried to lay on Obama, he was in the end a steady, no drama Neoliberal, and former constitutional lawyer. Oh, and a bible-believing Christian to boot.

This normality contrasts to the deranged egoism and pure ineptitude of a nincompoop who tweets policy positions and economic opinions at will. Often to the extent that CEOs of major corporations (after his GM tweet yesterday- sending shares briefly plummeting ) are treating his Twitter offal in much the same way as a hazardous waste spill or a health scare, in other words as "crisis management". This according to CBS finance commentator Melanie Hobson this morning, who pointed out how corporate heads are sick at the thought of this loon, "alone in a room with his phone", just popping off at anything that comes to mind. This is the effing asshole Caldara and his Trumpy dregs voted into power.  Hobson then detailed how companies are strategy planning to respond to the next random attacks from this Twitter troll.

Then there have been Trump's lies which continue to undermine the very intelligence agencies that will be protecting his sorry ass - not to mention the nation he is supposed to defend.  The latest was the lie that spat out again from his twitter:

"The 'intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case"

Which was totally shot down by the intel community noting the Friday briefing had always been planned for that day. There was no "delay". Is this something Caldara and his cronies can really live with the next 4 years (IF we're lucky)? A lying ass punk who can't tell the truth to save his sorry ass..

If ANY person isn't disturbed by these sort of responses and cavalier attitudes they need to get themselves checked out by a therapist because they aren't in contact with reality. I would nominate Jon Caldara to be first up for serious psychological evaluation before he writes his next column full of BS.

And don't get me started on all his business entanglements which as a recent Newsweek article ('Tangled Up In Orange'. Dec. 23rd, p. 26) put it:

"Already there is a situation where the President of the United States could be blackmailed by a foreign power"

Referencing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's earlier divulged plan (to associates) that he "intended to impede America's use of a critical Air Force base in Turkey"  should Trump win the presidency. Then there are Trump's other foreign entanglements, including with the Duterte government in the Philippines. As author Kurt Eichenwald noted:

"The Trump family's dealings in the Philippines will set off a constitutional crisis on the first day of Trump's presidency if anyone in the federal government decides to abide by the law."

Referencing the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

So, let's get this straight: between Trump's rejection of critical intelligence briefings and conclusions, and his foreign entanglements not to mention the total lack of impulse control, we're all supposed to fucking sleep easy at night? Gimme a break! Also, give me the bland, "no drama" Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The emphasis on Obama's sheer boring normality as a former Illinois state Senator and Democratic Senator is crucial to emphasize here to contrast with the unhinged insanity of Trump. And this needs to be done repeatedly, because I fear too many in the coming weeks - especially in the media- may fall down on the job and not hold a severe enough spotlight on Trump. Opting to choose the easy path of "normalization" that his follower yahoos (like Caldara) already have.

 This is also essential in order to appreciate Caldara's next bit for the balderdash it is, referencing the Right's response to Obama's election - compared to the Left's justifiable angst at Trump's ascension thanks to hacks - including of voting machines in key states.:

"Celebrities didn't post videos of their panicked hissy fits. Teachers didn't scare little grade school kids with doomsday prophecies."

Well, they didn't have to because they instinctively recognized Obama's inherently sober temperament, control of impulses and sensible disposition ("Mr. Spock" persona) . Hence, such reactions weren't needed by any person grounded in reality, i.e. sane.. So Caldara's verbal excrement is merely the screeching of a deranged banshee knowingly agitated by the fact he has supported a psychologically unstable, autocratic buffoon who promises to wreck this nation.

But the biggest bunch of bollocks may be this:

"Watching this meltdown it's clear the anti-Trumpies aren't just poor losers. They just don't get that Trump won because in great part, they had been such poor winners. The hard-edged progressive left just couldn't help doing a dance in the public policy end zone. The Trump victory was the ref's flag for 'excessive celebration'."

Huh?  WHAT excessive celebration? You mean putting together a stimulus package without which this nation would likely have fallen not only into recession but depression? (And for which the Repukes only gave minimal lip service). OR - are you referring to getting the ACA through without any GOP votes - despite the fact that 20 million now depend on it - more than two thirds of them TRUMP voters!   Seems you missed the memo that a good part of your white- worker industrial base actually WANTED THIS PUBLIC POLICY DANCE, as you call it.

Meanwhile, Denver Post letter writer Mike Pisaano had this to retort in last Sunday's paper to Caldara's codswallop:

"Trump did not win because of a Democratic meltdown caused by  “excessive celebration” of Obama’s public policy successes on gay marriage, health care, and environmental and energy changes. It’s because not enough Republican voters are disgusted by a candidate who brags about assaulting women or has regrets about not dating his own daughter. It’s because not enough Republican voters are outraged when Trump disparages John McCain for getting shot down over enemy territory and enduring five years of torture in captivity. It’s because not enough Republican voters are appalled when Trump calls Mexicans rapists and promises to exclude people who embrace Islam from entering the U.S."

Letter writer Ellen Haverl was no less severe and unforgiving in assessing Caldara's claptrap:

"Jon Caldara doesn’t remember anyone breaking down in tears when Barack Obama won because, despite one’s issues with him, his win did not mean the end of civilization as we know it. The reason there is such backlash against the Trump win is because the upcoming leader of the free world is a narcissistic, racist, sexist bully who will rule with a heavy fist. I’m proud to cry and march and sign any document I can to let everyone know that a Trump presidency is unacceptable to me and millions of Americans who genuinely fear for the future of our country. It’s called free speech, something Mr. Trump is not a fan of."

Ah yes, free speech. Something the Trump backers endlessly invoked after Obama was elected, depicting him in every disrespectful way imaginable including as a witch doctor with bone through his nose in their blogs. But now,  in their faux righteousness , they somehow expect all of us on the Left to shelve any animosity and just sing "Kumbaya" as we line up behind Trump.. Sorry, doesn't work like that!

This turkey Caldara then bellyaches about how we have accurately described his anti-global warming lot as "deniers" when they've rejected the consensus science of climate change. He writes:

"It's not that they imposed massive environmental and energy restrictions...it's that they insultingly label those who've come to a different conclusion on global warming as 'deniers':

WTF are you talking about? What "different conclusion"? You cannot have a solid, or sound conclusion unless you base it on real science and the D-E-N-I-E-R-S have NONE! Let me repeat that, none - NO science which stands up to even the most basic scrutiny of thermal physics or actual climate science. These birdbrains don't even accept that the glaciers are melting when they're doing it in from of their stupid faces, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRTInYTxLr4

So this is basic stuff. IF some semi-educated yahoo denies the sphericity of the Earth, then he IS a denier of the science of geodesy. If a similar yahoo denies  - despite all the evidence from ice cores - that more and more CO2 is warming the Earth then sorry, he IS a fucking denier! Case closed!

Or would Caldara rather we get into the realm of politically correct language and refer to his bunch as

"long term CO2 concentration serial disputators"

Or:

"climate science consensus equivocators"

Well, not going to happen. And just as his gaggle of climate DENIERS despise PC euphemisms, so do we. 

Caldara's op-ed babbling merely reaffirms again how badly divided this country is, and how much more divided it is going to become in the ensuing 4 years. The reason for an ever increasing gulf is simple: Those who treasure and abide by REALITY will never embrace bollocks, bullshit and fake news fantasy even from the likes of FAUX News' pundits, Trumpian pseudo-conspiracy creators and racist enablers. cheerleaders. And so long as enough people stand with the truth against recycled, misbegotten garbage and lies, this divide will remain. Oh, and as the garbage quotient grows so will the divide until two different nations will be effectively at war with each other.


See also: The Case For Beginning Trump's Impeachment NOW:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/04/does-impeachment-begin-now-the-case-for-building-the-end-of-trumps-presidency-before-it-even-starts/

Why The "Hamilton Electors" Would Be Right To Reject Trump

Alexander Hamilton - after whom the Hamilton electors derive their name.

Even as Colorado's Republican Secretary of State  Wayne Williams unleashed a mad attack on "unfaithful" electors, calling them "evil" and "arrogant", there is a small but growing movement within all the electors to overturn the designation of Trump as President. As The Denver Post has noted (yesterday, p. 2A) the mission is to "persuade Republican electors in other states to vote for a third option candidate to keep Trump from receiving 270 electoral votes."  The Colo. Dem electors are even offering to shift their votes from HRC to a "consensus pick" if it means stopping Trump.

These electors call themselves moral electors, also "Hamilton electors"- after Alexander Hamilton - which I will get to in a bit.  This is not based on pique but principle: assessing  the character of the man who would be President,  not to mention his convoluted business entanglements (which violate the emoluments clause of the constitution) pose a clear and present danger to this Republic. Indeed, his military picks for key offices show how close he plans to veer in respect of undermining the Posse Comitatus Act, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act


The "Hamilton electors" refers to a set of electors from different states, red and blue, now ready to vote against Donald Trump in the Electoral College casting of votes on December 19th. As one pointed out on Chris Hayes two nights ago, there are a number of reasons why these electors believe Trump is unqualified and needs to be prevented from any inauguration on January 20th.  But he particularly pointed out Trump's evident flouting of the Emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states that no American officeholder shall, “without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” The clause is not a historical quirk. Gordon Wood, an American historian, argues that America’s founding fathers were obsessed with the problem of corruption, which they believed had doomed earlier republics. Hence, they inveighed against even the appearance of being "gifted" by foreign interests, nations.

In the case of Trump, in the last few weeks we've seen move after move that Trump has retained his business interests instead of divesting them (as the Office of Ethics in Government has warned). And hence exposed the nation, his future administration and government to foreign influence.  As President these influences and "emoluments" will reach fever pitch and likely set the future stage for his potential impeachment. For example,  The Industrial and Agricultural Bank of China, whose majority stakeholder is the Chinese government, rents office space in New York City’s Trump Tower. The 35-storey Trump Office Buenos Aires development is awaiting approval from that city’s government.

TIME - which  designated Trump "Person of the Year" -  did the same for Adolf Hitler in its Jan. 2, 1939 issue (the choice is based on the person most impacting the world for good or ill), e.g.



Also exposed (in its Dec. 12, 2016 issue, p. 18) , that Trump in May (and with little fanfare)  invested in a potential hotel in Jedda, Saudi Arabia with the "help of the Saudi Binladen Group". That is the construction firm founded by the father of Osama bin Laden. Make of it what you will.

Then there is the newly announced deal by Trump, with a Japanese outfit - Softbank - which has pledged $50 billion to Trump and also claims to have 50,000 potential jobs for U.S. workers. When or where they will materialize we've no idea, nor how the job number was even determined.  However, it is understood the money will be coming from a $100 billion investment fund the Japanese CEO is setting up with Saudi Arabia' wealth fund.  So does this mean most of the $50 billion coming our way is supposedly coming from Saudi Arabia?  And more importantly, what are they going to want in return for this investment?

These are just a few of the unprecedented conflicts of interest presented by Trump’s decision to retain his business empire and hand its management over to his children. (He claims that doing so is effectively a "blind trust" but it's nothing of the sort. A blind trust means a totally independent entity holds such assets so there is no possibility at all of learning what's in them.)

Of course, Trumpeters will not hesitate to point out there is no law that obliges Trump to sell his assets or place them in a blind trust, though nine of the 12 presidents since the second world war have done so. But when his businesses accept money (or anything of value) from foreign governments or state-owned entities,  Trump may nevertheless be breaking the law. In fact, he may be violating the Constitution of the United States. This very potential ought to raise the hackles of electors of conscience and set off early warning bells.

Beyond the issue of Trump flouting the Emoluments clause in his potential Presidency, there is the issue of his character. It is clear to me, on reading The Federalist  #10 (by James Madison) and #68 (by Alexander Hamilton) last night, that Trump is precisely the type of populist "passion inciting" demagogue that the Founders feared, and trusted the Electoral College to keep from power.  Madison in the Federalist 10 exposed the nature of the problem while Hamilton in Federalist 68 discussed the remedy.

Madison's concern was  "mischief of faction" in an election whereby "citizens - whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole - are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion (to cast their votes) adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".  This is exactly what the Trump voters did, motivated by passion and recklessness via Trump's often violent rallies to give a middle finger salute to the rest of the country - thereby militating against the majority's interests. And by the latest tally HRC is now a full 2.7 million votes or two pct. points ahead of Trump in the popular vote.

Hamilton for his own part was blunt and to the point and his words bear directly on Trump's entanglements with foreign businesses and diplomats:

"Nothing is more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to a cabal, intrigue or corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Hamilton then lists the measures to ensure safeguards from overt foreign influence in our councils,  including, e.g.   no senators, representatives or others holding a position of trust shall be named as state electors, i.e. to the Electoral College.

However, later he leaves open the possibility that the same electors can ensure the integrity of the office through their own discretion which may, at some extreme points, diverge from what the people themselves voted for (particularly if motivated by passion as opposed to reason).

Thus we read:

"The process of election (by state electors) affords a moral certainty that the office of President shall never fall to the lot of any man who is not to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications...It will not be too strong to say that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

Would Hamilton (or Madison) regard Trump as such a character? Hardly! His display of rank passion alone - as in his unhinged tweets, would disqualify him. His very campaigning mode in encouraging violence ("punch 'em  in the face"), would leave all the Founders gasping for air, foundering at the spectacle of a madman's approach to power -  as well as the very passions inflamed in his followers to push him there-- that they so feared.

His crude words caught on tape about proudly assaulting women ("ya grab 'em by the pussy') would confirm once and for all that such a character lacked the virtue to hold the highest station. Add in his entanglements with foreign interests and it would be a slam dunk.

The Hamilton electors need to do what Hamilton and Madison would have and reject this unstable, narcissist autocrat whose antics threaten the very foundation of the Republic. And yes, my ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh, who fought in the Revolutionary War (as one of the Pennsylvania Regiment), would side with my stance totally.. Moreover, he'd be appalled that so many Americans could so recklessly toss their franchise away on a character unfit to even run a dog kennel - never mind he claims billionaire status. (Mostly via constant bankruptcies of  his casinos).  Conrad would have no qualms - if he were a state elector- turning the tables on a potential Trump despotic presidency.

The electors of today can do no less. Look at it this way: while we may undergo some upheaval and possibly a constitutional crisis in the wake of upending Trump's ascension to power, it's preferable to the alternative. That is, Trump likely ordering martial law before the next election, shutting down all dissent and imprisoning people by invoking the "continuity of government" provisions in the Patriot Act. Not to mention that, given all his military picks,  one expects the Posse Comitatus Act will have been terminated by then.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-hare/70169/stop-calling-him-president-elect-trump

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/70181/donald-trump-can-erase-your-rights-with-a-bar-napkin

Excerpt:

"Here is a man who won the election according to the rules as they stand. Donald Trump is about to become president of the United States of America, and yet he cannot stand the fact that he lost the popular vote. Result? He went on a Twitter tirade and completely undermined the validity of his own victory by bleating some balderdash about millions of illegal votes. It wasn't a one-off tweet, either; he just kept going and going and going like some cross between the Energizer Bunny and a character from Mortal Kombat.

Then, out of a clear blue sky, Trump became the defender of the American flag, tweeting that, perhaps, anyone who burns that flag should either be thrown in prison or stripped of their citizenship. The First Amendment, augmented by the Supreme Court's 1989 Texas v. Johnson decision, defends the burning of the flag as an act of free speech. The Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits the government from stripping a citizen of their citizenship. This is all black-letter law, making Trump's flag tweet just another burp in the void … but for this: His casual recommendation for addressing something so picayune as a burned flag is imprisonment or exile.

Put it all together. A man with the temperament of an earthquake, utterly devoid of self-control, with no one around him apparently capable of reining him in, a man who admittedly lives for revenge and retribution, who is completely incapable of absorbing criticism without having a very public meltdown, who knows little of the world, and who thinks nothing of throwing people who commit minor acts of dissent in prison … this man is about to be invested with astonishing legal powers."