Mar 20, 2018

March 16, 2018:

I am today announcing my candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all that I can....

At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to moral leadership of this planet.”

----Senator Robert Kennedy, March 16, 1968

A half century ago, Senator Robert Kennedy appearing in the Senate Caucus Room, the very same room in which his brother had launched his presidential campaign 8 years earlier, stepped up to the podium and with these words announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. In what historian Thurston Clarke would later call “The Last Campaign” (1), Kennedy, a half century ago today, began what can only be described as an odyssey; a journey in which he would grapple with his tumultuous times and by so doing transform not only his party but leave an indelible political legacy that tugs upon the national conscience calling upon our better angels. Eighty two days later, Robert Kennedy would be dead.

Thurston began his account with the funeral train from New York to Washington D.C., as the countryside gathered along the route to pay respect to a man who had come to mean so much. Years later MSNBC newsman Chris Matthews, himself chronicling the campaign would note the composition of those that gathered along the miles of railroad tracks. Blacks and white, young and old, protestant and catholic, people from every walk of life standing along the tracks holding flags, standing in salute, holding signs in a demonstration of reverence not seen since the funeral train of Franklin Roosevelt made its way north from Georgia.

  1. Clarke, Thurston. “The Last Campaign, Robert Kennedy and
      the 82 days that Inspired America” Henry Holt and Company
      New York, New York 1968. 321 pages.

Mar 15, 2018

March 15, 2018: Arrogance of Ignorance, Proud to be Stupid, Springtime for Sycophancy

"Caesar Disgustus prances about wearing his ignorance like a crown"
                 -----from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe"

Every day the country is presented with multiple outrages, blinding ignorance, and disturbing accounts of breathtaking dysfunction circling about the personage of our very own Caesar Disgustus.

An essay appearing on Rachel Maddow's blog, written by Steve Benen, chronicles the depth of ignorance and stupidity currently in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not only are they in residence, but their presence is openly celebrated. Here is Mr. Benen's complete commentary:

About a year ago, Donald Trump sat down for an interview with the Associated Press, which touched on the president’s criticisms of NATO. He referenced an exchange he had during the campaign with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, in which then-candidate Trump expressed deep concerns about the security alliance despite “not knowing much about NATO.”
In other words, according to Trump, he spoke with great conviction about a key area of U.S. foreign policy, despite the fact that – by his own admission – he had no idea what he was talking about.
Yesterday, something very similar happened. The president spoke at a fundraiser about a conversation he had with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in which the two leaders discussed which country had a trade deficit with the other. As the Washington Post  reported, Trump bragged last night that he made the private comments without having a clue as to whether or not he was correct.
Trudeau came to see me. He’s a good guy, Justin. He said, ‘No, no, we have no trade deficit with you, we have none. Donald, please,’ ” Trump said, mimicking Trudeau, according to audio obtained by The Washington Post. “Nice guy, good-looking guy, comes in – ‘Donald, we have no trade deficit.’ He’s very proud because everybody else, you know, we’re getting killed.
“… So, he’s proud. I said, ‘Wrong, Justin, you do.’ I didn’t even know…. I had no idea. I just said, ‘You’re wrong.’ You know why? Because we’re so stupid. … And I thought they were smart. I said, ‘You’re wrong, Justin.’ He said, ‘Nope, we have no trade deficit.’ I said, ‘Well, in that case, I feel differently,’ I said, ‘but I don’t believe it.’ I sent one of our guys out, his guy, my guy, they went out, I said, ‘Check, because I can’t believe it.’”
So, Trump started with the premise that the United States is “stupid” – a curious assumption for an American president – and then based his assumptions on that dubious foundation. It then led him to assume, without having any facts or having done any homework ahead of his meeting with the Canadian prime minister, that we have a trade deficit with our neighbors to the north.

According to last night’s story, Trump’s aide then came back to him to assure the president that he was, in fact, correct about the trade imbalance – which is bizarre, since, according to the Trump administration’s own data, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

What’s amazing about this story, however, isn’t just the American president being wrong about a simple issue he’s talked about for years.

Rather, what we have here is a president bragging about making stuff up, then assuring his audience that his evidence-free claims are accidentally true, without realizing that he’s still wrong. It’s like a lie wrapped in a gaffe inside propaganda.
For most presidents, this would be a deeply embarrassing moment that he hoped the public would never find out about. For this president, it’s an anecdote that Trump thinks makes him look better, not worse.

What’s more, given the circumstances, we have no reason to believe any of the conversations Trump described last night – the one with Trudeau or the one with the aide who looked up the trade details – actually happened in reality. It’s entirely possible the president just made up this part of the story, too.

After all, according to Trump, this is just what he does. Why anyone would ever take his word at face value is something of a mystery. When someone boasts about making stuff up, their credibility necessarily evaporates.

Donald Trump is not the nation’s first ignorant president. He is the first American president to brag about his ignorance, as if it’s worthy of celebration. “ (1)

This account comes close upon the heels of an account by economist Paul Krugman in this Tuesday's New York Times. Writing about tRUMP and trade, Krugman takes usual note of the tRUMP's usual nonsense, this time referencing trade with Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. Disgustus has “focused on an unexpected target: the European Union, which he tweeted has 'horrific barriers & tariffs on U.S. Products going in...This is odd on several levels,” continued Krugman noting that Disgustus routinely directs his ire based on “racial enmity”. “Why,” he asked, would tRUMP “rush into a spitting match with our allies that only serves the interests of enemies of freedom like Vladimir Putin? Oh wait.” 

Disgustus is, as usual, writes Krugman citing a 3 percent average tariff on U.S. Goods exported to Europe, wrong about facts.

Where is he getting this nonsense? Krugman suggests an adviser named Peter Navarro who came to the attention of Jared Kushner who was instructed to “find some research supporting his (tRUMP's) protectionist trade views”. Kushner then went to Amazon and finding a book authored by Navarro called “Death by China”, he cold-called one of the books authors, who became the campaigns first economic adviser”.

Krugman, a respected economist explained that Navarro, although holding Ph.D. nevertheless is (surprise!) out of the mainstream of accepted economic thought citing as an example Navarro's “complete misunderstanding of the trade effects of value added taxes (VATs), which the U.S. doesn't have but play a large role in most European countries' revenue”.

So how does someone who misunderstands such a basic, well-understood point about taxes and trade get to be a key economic adviser? As I said, it's because he tells the boss what he wants to hear. More than that, he's willing t abase himself in extraordinary ways.
Here's what he told Bloomberg recently: 'My function, really, as an economist is to try and provide the underlying analytics that confirm his intuition. And his intuition is always right in these matters.' Wow” Navarro, Krugman points out, is here declaring himself to be nothing but a propagandist, not only confirming the worst prejudice of Disgustus but kneeling to the lowest level of sycophancy, all but openly declaring our erstwhile Caesar infallible.

As Caesar Disgustus basks in the sycophantic glow produced by the house of mirrors that he is building about himself; as Caesar Disgustus prances about wearing his ignorance like a crown, came the news that he has accepted an invitation by North Korea to meet the Korean leader to negotiate some sort of settlement. The world trembles in the balance.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison
  1. Krugman, Paul. “Springtime for Sycophants” The New York Times. Tuesday, March
    13, 2018. Page A24

Mar 14, 2018

March 11, 2018: The New Republicans, Staggeringly Stupid, Sacrificing the Heartland

For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two, three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

----Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street) (1)

If one were to seek an explanation of what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party one would have to look no further than the face of the Party in the United States Senate. I am referring here to none other than Wall Street's very own senator, Chuck Schumer.

Here, precisely, is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Frank Bruni, writing recently in The New York Times, (2) describes how the Democrats are becoming the new Republicans. By foisting Caesar Disgustus upon the nation, the Rescumlickan Party has made a mockery of the political high ground; the defense of which has always been transparently fraudulent.

Bruni points out that it is the Democrats who now claim defense of family values, whatever that means, by promoting gay marriage and defending the social safety net, efforts directed at forming increasingly heterodox families and keeping them together. Democrats are now the party of patriotism by calling out the Russians for violating our political process as well as our political institutions actions against which tRUMP's nonsense about NFL players appear laughable. Democrats are the party of national security defending as they do the network of alliances that have kept peace between the major powers for three quarters of a century. Democrats are also the party of law and order defending the FBI and our intelligence services from savage attacks by the White House and the minions of Disgustus in the Congress and the media.

It is right and proper that the Democracy once again reclaims its role as champion of these values, a claim that has been brought into serious question by the fraudulence and hypocrisy of the conservative movement as manifest in the Rescumlickan Party.

But, unfortunately, the party of “fiscal responsibility”, is also now the party of Wall Street.

By ratifying Reagan and the Bush's several assaults on the tax code, the Democrats began a long slide down the path of perdition that led, by degrees, to deregulation and the savaging of the safety net. It led by the Obama years, into accepting the Rescumlican drivel about the need for austerity in times of recession, unlearning by degrees painful historical lessons. It led to the abandonment of unions. Indeed, the Democratic Party—since the day the Carter Administration folded its tents over labor legislation—has raised nary a voice in support of organized labor and the working man and woman that unions protect. These policies have resulted in stagnant wages, prolonging hardship in times of recession, burdening our young with crushing debts, and the decline of the middle classes in the United States.

In sum, the Democrats, becoming material accomplices in the dismantling of the New Deal, betrayed the Middle Classes that the party created and nurtured. The doors were left open for the rise of a Populist Revolt in the form first of the Teabaggers and then the tRUMPists.

With the elevation of Caesar Disgustus the Democrats presented the country with a new leader in the Senate: none other than the face of Wall Street. Accordingly, we are now about to see the Senate take up a measure repealing several provisions of the Dodd-Frank law, the tepid congressional response to the crash of 2008 with—you guessed it—bipartisan support. No stone, it appears, will be left unturned as Democrats tirelessly strive to transform their party into the Republican Party of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. At this writing, not only has Richard Durbin, the Minority Whip of the Senate, but a dozen other Democrats, including both Senators Peters and Stabenow of Michigan have pledged support for yet another effort by Democratic office holders to transform the party into the Rescumlican Party of our fathers and grandfathers.

This is what happens when the party of the working people has been sold out to Wall Street; and this is why the Democratic Party lost control of both houses of Congress, two thirds of the state legislatures and the White House. No, Chuck, the strategy hasn't worked. It didn't work in Wisconsin, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Michigan. It hasn't worked in Iowa or Kansas or the former Democratic strongholds of West Virginia, Kentucky or Tennessee. By ceding vast swaths of this country, from the Appalachians to the rust belt, the Democrats have allowed Caesar Disgustus to sneak in through the back door; for the staggering stupidity that inspired the Clinton-led DLC and its latest incarnation called The Third Way is still with us as the entrenched mossbacks that lead this party continue to sacrificed not only the noble tradition of the Democratic Party, but the middle class and with it the American Heartland in the not-so-noble pursuit of Rescumlican votes.

Enter Caesar Disgustus.

an' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

  1. Bruni, Frank. “Democrats Are the New Republicans. “The New York Times”
    Wednesday, December 20, 2017. Page A27

Mar 11, 2018

March 7, 2018: Dereliction of Duty, Not a Dime for Defense, Dropping our Shields

Caesar Disgustus has opened the gates in the face of a hostile foreign threat. There are no other words but Dereliction of Duty.”
----from “The Quotations of Chairman Joe”

The “New York Times” recently touched upon both the magnitude of the ongoing Russian threat and the Administration's staggeringly vapid response. Reacting to recent congressional testimony of our intelligence community concerning the nature of the threat and our tepid response, the Times had this to say:

With the midterm elections only nine months away, the federal government is taking some defensive measures. It is trying to get at least one election official in each state a security clearance to make them aware of threats, and is providing states with enhanced online security to ensure that Americans' votes will not be manipulated.

Nevertheless, absent Mr. Trump's commitment, there can be no robust mobilization to take all measures needed to confront an insidious problem that strikes at the heart of the democratic system. These would include a comprehensive and well-funded plan for protecting critical infrastructure, countering cyberattacks and mitigating propaganda.

The president should not only be strengthening electoral defenses, but also pushing back against Russia, instead of ignoring a law Congress adopted overwhelmingly to impose sanctions for election meddling and aggression against Ukraine. The list of potential activities meriting sanctions covers weapons deals, human rights abuses and Russian cyberattacks against the United States and other democracies.

Although Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin assured Congress...that sanctions 'are coming,' there's little reason to believe him.” (1)

There is no reason to believe him. As the editors of The New York Times had duly noted, the heads of the C.I.A., and F.B.I., as well as the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency—tRUMP appointees all, testified that “the president has never asked them to take measures to combat Russian interference and protect democratic processes.” (2)

Admiral Michael Rogers, Director of the National Security Agency, recently testified before Congress that he too has received no instruction whatever in regard to the Russian threat. He said that the government is in possession of powerful countermeasures that can be undertaken but as yet no word has come down from on high. No one on the committee asked the Director why he hadn't contacted the White House and asked for instruction and authority to act, but the revelation that the White House has done nothing is staggering. Then, following this revelation—coming as it does on the heels of previous testimony before Congress by the other intelligence experts—it was revealed by The Washington Post that Rex Tillerson hasn't done a thing. Not only had the State Department closed down the office of sanctions enforcement but now the Post reports that State hasn't spent a dime of the 120 million dollars voted by Congress to defend us against these attacks.

Why hasn't there been a push-back? The intelligence community is warning us that the Russians have not retreated but have stepped up their cyberattacks. “Some have said” opined “The Times”, that “he is giving Russia a green light to tamper with the 2018 election. That would have once been an absurd suggestion. It can no longer be dismissed out of hand”.

Indeed, it cannot for the recent testimony must be seen in the context of a series of behaviors regarding the emerging and ongoing Russian threat. First, in 2016 Disgustus openly invited the Russians to continue to hack into the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign, and then, once in office, the administration quickly moved to cut from the budget all money designated to protect our electoral system from cyberattacks, There can now be no doubt that our Caesar Disgustus is dropping our remaining shields and inviting an ongoing assault upon our electoral proceedings.

This is beyond mere staggering incompetence; this is beyond unfathomable corruption; this is Dereliction of the Duty to protect this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

an Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

  1. Editorial. “Mr. Trump is Blind to Russia's Threat” The New York Times. Thursday, February 15, 2018. Page A30
  2. ibid

Mar 2, 2018

March 2, 2018: Phalanx of Intelligence, Twisting In The Wind, Unmistakable Conclusion

In an editorial appearing in The New York Times, the paper asserted that tRUMP is “blind to Russia's threat”. “The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message,” wrote the editors, “not only did Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to exacerbate the country's political and social divisions...

It's particularly striking that four of the men who gave this warning to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday—C.I.A. Director, Mike Pompeo; the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats; the F.B.I. Director, Christopher Wray; and the Defense Intelligence Agency director, Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley—were all appointed by Trump” (1)

The editors note that tRUMP is not completely oblivious concerning Russia's behavior, but that he “continues refuse to even acknowledge the malevolent Russian role.” (2) Indeed, NSA (National Security Agency) Director Mike Rogers, testified before Congress this week that he has yet to receive any instructions from the White House concerning a response to the threat dumbfounding Connecticut Senator Reed. The director informed the senators that indeed this country has powerful cyber weapons that can be brought to bear. Unfortunately, no one asked the director why he hadn't reached the White House to ask for directions. Instead, we find the heads of relevant departments twisting in the wind.

The unmistakable conclusion one is left to draw is this: tRUMP is not blind to the Russian threat. In fact tRUMP knows all about the threat; has been an eager participant in the Russian effort; a willing volunteer in the subversion of the country's electoral process; an eager accessory to the crimes. Precisely why he has been so obsequious to Putin, such willing clay in Putin's hands remains to be fully explored. But one thing is sure: follow the money.

an' Br'er Putin he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison

  1. Mr. Trump is Blind to Russia's Threat” The New York Times Editorial. Thursday
    February 15, 2018. Page A30
  2. Ibid.

March 1, 2018: End of Hope, Rats Overboard, Sooth The Beast

Michael Wolff, chronicling the aftermath of the firing of FBI director and the smashup over revelations of the nefarious Trump Tower Meeting in June 2016, wrote this account: “Bannon, who continued to defend (attorney General) Sessions, and who believed that he had militantly—indeed with scathing attacks on the Jarvankas (Jared Kusher and Ivanka Trump as they were known in the White House) for their stupidity—walled himself off from the Comey Smashup, was now suddenly getting calls from reporters with leaks that painted him as an engaged participant in the Comey Decision.

In a furious phone call to Hicks, Bannon blamed the leaks on her. In time, he had come to see the twenty-eight-year-old as nothing more than a hapless presidential enabler and poor-fish Jarvanka flunky—and he believed she had now deeply implicated herself in the entire disaster by participating in the Air Force One meeting.”

This was the meeting, one may recall, in which as the story of the Trump Tower meeting was breaking, the Trump Team returning from a European conference aboard Air Force One, concocted the story –reportedly over the objection of Jared and Ivanka—composed by Trump himself that the meeting was about the adoption of Russian children.

The next day, with more inquiries coming from reporters, he confronted Hicks inside the cabinet room, accusing her of doing Jared and Ivanka's dirty work. The face-off quickly escalated into an existential confrontation between the two sides of the White House—two sides on a total war footing.

You don't know what you're doing,” shouted a livid Bannon at Hicks, demanding to know who she worked for, the White House or Jared and Ivanka. “You don't know how much trouble you are in,” he screamed, telling her that if she didn't get a lawyer he would call her father and tell him he had better get one “You are Dumb as a Stone!” Moving from the cabinet room across the open area into the president's earshot, 'a loud, scary, clearly threatening' Bannon, in the Jarvanka telling, yelled, 'I am going to fuck you and your little group!' with a baffled president plaintively wanting to know, 'what's going on?”'. (1) Hicks then ran, according to the Jarvanka account from the room 'visibly terrified' and hysterically sobbing. (2)

Indeed, Hicks, then twenty-six had been the campaign's first hire. Working through the ranks first as a model for an agency working to promote Ivanka's clothes, jewelry, and cosmetics lines, she was hired first by Ivanka and then her father. Over time she became tRUMP's closest confidant. Marginalized by the Priebus faction, and the Bannon faction, Trump would more than occasionally cast about the room asking “Where's Hope?.”

As attrition quickly thinned the ranks, Hope began to rise in stature, finally replacing the short-lived and quickly reviled Scaramucci as communications director. It was her job to interpret media coverage in as positive a light as possible and she was accordingly seen as a tempering presence in a chaotic White House, whose prime function was to sooth the beast. In the 'adult day care center' that Senator Corker has described this White House, Hope Hicks was viewed as the primary attendant.

After testifying for eight long hours in a closed-door session before the House Intelligence Committee, Hope Hicks announced her resignation.

The White House, of course, put a positive spin on her departure—you know the usual pap about seeking new challenges, new horizons beckon, family matters. It is all rubbish. She had been previously questioned by Robert Mueller

Hicks had been 'present at creation'. She has been by the side of 'The Donald' from before he launched his campaign, privy to every meeting, every communication. As Bannon so rightly pointed out, the press releases posing false narratives, have her fingerprints all over them. She is in legal jeopardy and she and her family may never have the resources it will take to navigate the troubled waters in which she has inadvertently fallen.

How was Hope to know that this is what happens when one reaches proximity to the Tar Baby? One finds oneself immediately soiled, if not defiled, by the experience. Perhaps she should have consulted his ex-wives, contractors who have done business with him, or virtually anyone else that he has come in contact with and are no longer hanging about. No one, it is clear, emerges unsullied and this poses a problem not only for the likes of Hope Hicks, in the aftermath, but for anyone now contemplating joining an administration in which the rats are now scurrying about the decks frantically searching for means to jump ship.

'an  Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison

  1. Wolff, Michael. “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” Henry Holt and
Company. 2018. Pages 261-262
  1. Ibid. page 262
  2. Ibid page 26

Feb 28, 2018

February 28, 2018: Clueless in the Saddle, Binary Choice, Villain or Fool?

Life often presents us with a binary choice: go right or left; it is right or wrong: it is or it isn't.
                             ----from "The Quotations of Chairman Joe"

Michelle Goldberg, writing in last Tuesday's New York Times, placed in stark relief the case against Donald J. Trump. Robert Mueller, she notes, had just indicted Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his assistant Rick Gates on multiple counts of “money laundering and conspiracy against the United States”. (1)

The Trump campaign would have us believe that this was all pre-tRUMP, but recent evidence is emerging that money laundering continued throughout the campaign.

It appears that money having dried up from Manafort and Gates' Ukraine sources following the overthrow of the Kremlin-backed regime for whom they were working and raking in millions in the process, the two—particularly Manafort—found themselves in desperate financial straits.

Nevertheless, tRUMP finds himself confronted by Manafort offering his campaign services even though he is (a) desperate for cash and (b) has done no domestic political work in the United States for a decade or more. He has no political track record save helping to prop up an authoritarian regime and he has no extensive political connections in the United States. The answer appears to be: (1), he is well-dressed and appears to be as he represents himself: a man of great wealth, and (2) perhaps more importantly, he offers to work for tRUMP for free. This is a combination guaranteed to mesmerize our erstwhile Caesar.

Immediately, Manafort sought to use his role in the campaign to repair his relationship with (Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska to whom he owed a great deal of money) Deripaska. In April, as the Washington Post reported, he emailed an employee in Kiev about his new job, and wrote, apparently in relation to Deripaska, 'how do we get whole?' In July, Manafort offered to give Deripaska private briefings about the campaign”. (2)

Then, about this time, there is the question of the reversal engineered by Manafort with, according to a delegate on the platform committee, the explicit understanding and instructions from Donald J. Trump that the party reverse itself and abandon the support of the pro-western Ukrainian government and support Moscow.

It's certainly possible”, writes Goldberg, “that Trump himself didn't personally connive with Russia for campaign help. Perhaps, through a combination of carelessness and miserliness, he unwittingly allowed his campaign to be infiltrated at the highest levels by both alleged and admitted criminals with Russian ties, such a scenario, however, would not be exculpatory”. (3)

Indeed, Manafort's accomplice Rick Gates has pleaded guilty, as has several other campaign operatives The question, as put by Senator Howard Baker in the Watergate hearings, is 'what did the president know and when did he know it?'.

Perhaps Trump didn't realize that his campaign was being run by alleged Russian money launderers, that at least tow of his foreign policy advisers had entanglements with Russian intelligence, and that his campaign had a heads up about Russian plans to dump stolen Clinton emails online. None of last week's new information proves that Trump is too disloyal to his own country to be president. But the only alternative is that he is too clueless.(4)

Confronted with this inescapable binary choice, I chose the former. Caesar Disgustus will, when the dust finally settles on this wretched administration, be shown the traitor that he is. It is becoming increasingly clear that both the candidate and those about him are eyeball deep in racketeering and money laundering; that they have conspired with a foreign adversary against the United States. Caesar Disgustus' appeal to the Russians to continue to hack his adversaries is a clear indication of his acceptance of the practice and encouragement of it, regardless of the law. His responding to suggestions by the Russians that he cry foul in the event of an electoral defeat is likewise an indication of close collaboration. The myriad ties of campaigning operatives and hangers-on from Papadopoulos, to Roger Stone, to Manafort, Gates, Kushner and his own Son, reveal the level of involvement. It is impossible to believe that Disgustus didn't have intimate knowledge of what transpired. He knows he's guilty, and that's why he has gone to such great lengths to discredit those hot on his trail.

In the end, after sufficient time to wreak whatever possible vandalism, he will be shown the door. The binary question posed by Goldman offers a binary solution: Either Disgustus will replace Benedict Arnold as our greatest national villain or he will go down in history as our greatest national fool.

an' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison

  1. Goldberg, Michelle. “Conspirator, or Just Clueless?” The New York Times. Tuesday, February 27, 2018. Page A19
  2. ibid
  3. ibid
  4. ibid