Happy Birthday, Mr. President, sir

It is not often, if ever, in history that our president is born on June 14th, Flag Day.  We finally have such a man as the CEO of our great nation.  What better day for an American president to be born!   Happy birthday, sir!

No president in history (with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson, an unbelievable populist who did unbelievable things with slavery and Indian removal) has ever made good on as many campaign promises as you have.  In spite of so many sick, criminal traitors dogging you at every step.

You promised us all an unbelievable health care system, cheaper and better than what your Kenyan-born secret Muslim predecessor tried to foist on America.    You delivered.   Americans no longer need to live in fear of going bankrupt to receive treatment for life threatening medical conditions.    You are the man!

You promised unbelievable tax breaks, and you delivered them!

You promised to protect us from the hordes of raping, murdering, thieving illegals from disgusting places like Mexico.   Although the great WALL you promised is still under construction, in spite of its being sabotaged all along by open borders traitors, you have nonetheless done unbelievable things at the southern border.  Your incarceration of thousands of illegal children grabbed from their “parents” is but one unbelievably great thing you’ve done down there.   Way to show those criminal fucks who’s boss, sir!  (We all know that “asylum” is just Spanish slang for “we want to rape your precious white children”!)

You gave us a solid, loyal right-wing Supreme Court majority!   And a record number of Federalist Society-vetted ideologically pure federal judges for life.   A grateful nation of unborn embryos (as well as captains of industry) salutes you, sir!

Whatever your many enemies constantly say about you, sir, and most of it can be dismissed as the partisan BULLSHIT that it is, you are an unbelievable winner and they are unbelievable, complete and total losers!   You will fight until everybody is dead, which is why so many people love you!

Happy birthday, my man!  Many, many more!

Braying, strutting and attacking sometimes impresses the weak

I just watched a Republican Congressman named Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) angrily hector John Dean, who was in Congress yesterday to testify about the mechanics and progression of the 1973 Nixon impeachment.   He upbraided Dean without pause and spent some time emphasizing that Dean was a convicted perjurer.   Dean had lied under oath to obstruct justice in order to protect his boss and himself, before he signed an immunity deal to testify truthfully against Nixon.  The short intro to John Dean is that perjured himself while obstructing justice to defend Nixon before becoming a “rat” for the feds, not a very rosy thing for Trump supporters to consider at this moment. 

Jordan had good reason to avoid the details of what Dean had lied about — he harped on Dean’s perjury to undermine anything Dean might have to say.  How could anyone trust a man who had already been convicted of perjury?   Why should anyone listen to a known, convicted liar.   The real scandal, Jordan thundered finally, is that the Judiciary Committee is not investigating why the Russia election meddling investigation was started in the first place.   (This is a Republican talking point, say what you want about ’em, they stay on message).   

Think about that for a second.   Jordan angrily interrupted Jerald Nadler when he spoke after Jordan’s time was up.  Nadler was chiding Jordan, and admonishing the rest of the Republicans, that he would not tolerate anyone casting aspersions of the witness.  Jordan behaved like bullies always behave, angrily interrupted Nadler to insist that he’d cast no aspersions on the goddamned liar and then yelled  “you’re wrong!” when Nadler again said that he’d cast aspersions on John Dean.   If you want to feel a little sick to your stomach (or be inspired, if you wear a red MAGA hat)  watch the exchange for yourself.

To answer Jordan’s central point: the investigation began because there was a strong appearance that Russia coordinated with members of the Trump campaign and actively meddled in the 2016 election to try to get Trump elected.  Mueller provided ample evidence of these things in his report (what he could not prove were all the elements of criminal conspiracy). 

In a democracy, a foreign adversary’s ability to influence an electoral outcome, particularly in a presidential election, is seen as bad, something to make sure doesn’t happen again.   That is why it has to be investigated when there are multiple signs it may have happened.   When an FBI director is fired, legally, because he won’t close down an investigation that could compromise or undermine the president’s legitimacy (a corrupt purpose for the  firing), it is entirely reasonable to begin an independent  investigation. 

Mueller, a lifelong Republican, ultimately protected the president with obscure legalistic language that did many double negative contortions not to not provide conclusions that were not unharmful to POTUS, even as he found massive Russian interference, many involvements with the campaign and indicted a bunch of Russians for their role in it.  He took a last public opportunity to warn again of the danger of more Russian interference in the 2020 election.  The Mueller report describes something like 140 documented instances of coordination between the Russians and people in Trump’s campaign.  But that means nothing to the team that controls the Senate and the veto.

Jim Jordan ended his session with one giant, already asked and answered rhetorical question for John Dean (barked out to impress the audience of one all Republicans seem to be playing to):  why isn’t the judiciary committee investigating the origins of the partisan Mueller witch hunt?  (which, paradoxically, according to the unintendedly ironic lawyerly arguments of Bill Barr, basically exonerated the president).  Barr’s DOJ, by the way, is supposedly investigating the origins of this traitorous Deep State conspiracy against Trump.

Let’s take a step back.   Why do people fight counter-factually, irrationally like that?  To win.   Winning is the only point of being in it, this type believes, if you’re not in it to win, you’re a loser.   There is no more important value than winning, and if you believe there are other factors to consider, other values, it just proves you’re a loser.  People who compromise are weak, they’re suckers, ultimately losers.   We play hardball and we win, we won,  you lost, fuck off and die, loser!   Nice game, asshole.

This attitude is childish and destructive in the way an angry child’s tantrum can turn deadly if the enraged kid has easy access to a deadly weapon.  Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe how you play the game and your sportsmanship (as it was called in the old sexist days) is more important than being willing to do anything, including cheating, to win.   

I’m not saying Trump cheated to win, but I’m not saying he didn’t not cheat.  If I had confidence that he didn’t not cheat, I would so state.   We simply have no ironclad, bullet-proof, beyond a reasonable doubt proof either way, outside of the reasonable doubt provided by his abrasive, defensive personality and the lies he tells daily, the thousands he has told since becoming president.  To which, to be fair, Republicans have a good answer:


And let me also say, there is nothing untoward, unethical or illegal about having a team of quants create algorithms to pinpoint exactly how many districts in swing states must be won in order to win the all-important Electoral College vote.  It’s a smart thing to do, in a system like ours, designed to be overseen by those who know the importance of compromise with slaveholders.   

The Trump team engineered the Electoral College victory brilliantly, on behalf of Mr. Trump and billionaire math genius Robert Mercer, a former Lyin’ Ted Cruz supporter, who likely organized, funded and oversaw the effort.  The 78,000 votes needed in those four states were targeted brilliantly and achieved the aim of winning the needed Electoral College votes.   Game over, Trump president, whatever the homosexuals and transexuals in California and New York may think about the “popular vote” they rigged by showing up, along with those millions of dead Mexican “voters”.  Nothing illegal or unethical about Trump’s  win, nothing whatsoever.   

Sometimes it is helpful to see political and historical disputes in the context of personal clashes we experience.  I recently found myself in an alarming situation with an old friend who is suddenly enraged at me, implacably so.    The only real cause I could find, after trying to figure out where this stream of angry attacks was really coming from, is that this fellow has low self-esteem which is, apparently, enflamed by my smug sense of maturity.   That’s the same kind of thing that plagues Donald Trump every time he erupts into his rages.   

Because an “inferiority complex” always makes the sufferer feel at an unfair disadvantage in the world, for whatever reason, they attack.   It makes them feel strong, proactive, vital and masculine to punch, kick and scream at those they feel belittle them.   I recall days before I started questioning my own frequent anger when the adrenalized, righteous fury I felt was a kind of drug.   A very addictive drug.  It’s exhilarating to feel righteous and aggressively fighting your abuser.  Not a good long-term strategy for living a calmer, better life with others, but certainly an appealing option in the short-term.

The personality profile of someone who feels like a “loser” usually includes collecting grievances, assembling an airtight prosecutorial case against anyone  who, for whatever reason (or sometimes no reason that survives any scrutiny) makes them feel worse about themself, and going on the attack, armed with this list of unforgivable offenses.      A person who feels shame and humiliation is often ripe for manipulation by people who play to their sense of injustice.

Unscrupulous demagogues find fertile ground in the shame and humiliation of their audience.  These beaten people need something to galvanize their resistance to unbearably painful emotions about themselves.    Hitler was famous for his insistence that Germany had been humiliated, “stabbed in the back”, by ruthless, cunning  Jews who orchestrated the undefeated German army’s capitulation at the end of what was then called The Great War.   Yelling to crowds of unemployed, hopeless, angry, desperate, impoverished, shame-filled Germans he gave them a potent, intoxicating sense that he would make Germany great again, avenge this Jewish betrayal once and for all, that the enemies of Germany would be hanging from lamp posts, etc. 

It wouldn’t be like me not to add that Mr. Hitler won approximately the same percentage of electoral support, less than 40% of the German voting public, at the Nazi party’s electoral peak,  as Mr. Trump won and keeps, using a similar strategy of manfully exploiting the psychological vulnerabilities of his audience.   

You feel hopeless and betrayed, and ashamed, because your job is gone.  It’s nothing personal, on one level, there are millions in the same boat as you, but still, it hurts a lot.   Global corporations have no allegiance to country, they make things wherever workers can be hired most inexpensively, or automate away your job, to increase their profit margin.   This is good business for investor returns and the corporate bottom line, bad for workers who have to try to find several shit jobs to replace the lost decently paying ones that are never coming back to America, no matter how great Trump makes America again.   

It makes you angry, as it should [1], that nobody is watching out for you, that people with obscene wealth are taking your job and shitting on your life because they can.  No reason on earth not to be angry about that.  Who did that to me, goddamn it?!!  I would like to punch them in their fucking smug faces!

Enter Trump, with every reason you could want for your anger.  He fingers the real culprits to the appreciative roar of the crowd at his perpetual campaign rallies.

Fucking Mexicans, Muslims, Democrats, you see, they’re all in on it, they’re in it with the so-called transexuals and the homosexuals that Jesus Christ Himself abhors.  And turncoat Republicans like Mueller who is a disgrace and a traitor, no matter that he totally exonerated me.  And freedom-hating scientists who claim all the burning fossil fuel and massive deforestation and the meat industry are increasing carbon in the atmosphere, fuck those lying communist hacks too.   Oh, yes, and the blacks and hispanics are out of control, completely out of control, American cities are war zones, total disasters, in addition to being Sodom and Gomorrah.   Mobs of traitors and enemies of the people are trying to organize to illegally overthrow the greatest winner our country has ever had as president.   A man with, by the way, by far, the largest penis of any American president, a whopping male member the size of all previous presidential penises combined.  Prove any of that’s not true, you disloyal treasonous, traitor fucks!

I know you are, but what am I?


[1   The only good use for anger is as motivation.  Like a sharp pain that sends you to a doctor who diagnoses the problem your body is trying to tell you about with the pain.   Anger is a huge subject, of course, and among the most important to consider, but fuck trying to go into that any further in this footnote, yo. 

A few thoughts from Mueller’s Volume II summary of the obstruction case (he refrained from making) against the president

Here are some of Mueller’s own carefully chosen words, from his executive summary of Volume II — Obstruction of Justice.   I have broken them into smaller paragraphs, and inserted comments, to aid in the mastication and digestion of a few key points.

Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts,

Because, according to Mueller, regulations obliged him to obey the OLC opinion about not indicting a sitting president and fairness prevented charging him when the president would have no opportunity to immediately clear his good name,

but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President’s conduct.

Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases.

First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below.

At the same time, the President’s position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses—all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis.

Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.

Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.

It was this second point that Bill Barr chose as the center of his supremely lawyerly but plainspoken talking points, his best (and only) grounds for defending Trump against the weight of the evidence in the Mueller Report.   

According to Barr, Mueller “acknowledged” that the President had been “angry and frustrated” about the unfair investigation of an innocent man– and so his “intent” — a key to obstruction and criminal conspiracy as well, cannot, according to Barr,  be proven to be corrupt, or obstructive, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law– therefore— since any innocent man would have, arguably, acted the same way the president did:   NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view.

That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws.

If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same.  

Every time details of Trump’s pattern of acts to thwart investigation into himself and his administration emerge, the public groans “we heard that one already!  He tweeted it!”.   FOX thunders “old news!  already litigated!”     Here Mueller reminds America that the many likely obstructive acts detailed in his report are no less obstructive if done by tweet.

Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.

In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President’s motives.

The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through the President’s firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation.

Mueller writes briefly about the original investigation, based on allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and triggered by the firing of FBI director James Comey when he wouldn’t let the “Flynn thing” go, and then the need to expand it when the president began actively trying to thwart the investigation at every turn. 

This is the crux of Mueller’s unspoken (but carefully laid out) case against Trump– willful and ongoing obstruction of all legal investigations involving him.   Trump’s furious response to the investigations kicked into higher gear once the Special Counsel was appointed to conduct his “witch hunt.”

Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.

At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.

Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

The totality of the evidence looks pretty bad here, if you add it all up, and points to an unwavering and corrupt intent to obstruct legal process, a felony.   

The number of close associates of the president who were fired, who quit, resigned, were implicated in unethical behavior, indicted, convicted, locked up, the many ongoing (and redacted) investigations into Unindicted Donald and numerous associates, do not appear to be factors in the presumed-innocent president’s favor.  Nor does his blanket, openly contemptuous refusal to obey any and all subpoenas and his standing order to everyone with pertinent information not to speak to Congress.  

Or, we can go with Bill Barr’s generous, loyal, exculpatory view:   

The president’s motive was, as Mueller himself “acknowledged,” that the president was (righteously) angry and frustrated, which anyone would have been in the president’s position, particularly if they knew they were innocent.  The president, said Barr, has been proven as innocent, of everything, as viciously villainized pious Christian girls’ basketball coach and scrupulously fair Justice Boof Kavanaugh himself, unfairly besieged on every side by enraged, irrational partisan spies and traitors, funded by a cabal of wealthy extreme leftwing freedom haters,  who don’t base their actions on fact and reason, but on irrational hatred of a good and unfairly, illegally, attacked man whose only crime is trying to restore lost greatness to our divided nation.  As Jesus Christ Himself desires, most ardently.

Here is  Mueller’s immediate written reaction to Barr’s purposeful misinterpretation of the findings of his investigation, which Barr only withheld from public view for less than a month, while he pressed on with his false and misleading narrative about Mueller’s findings.  In common language Mueller’s short letter boils down to: dude, why are you lying?

You decide which side of the scale the totality of the evidence that Trump obstructed (and continues to obstruct) justice comes down on, now that you’ve considered both sides.   You have a strong summary denial, on one side, and hundreds of pages of sworn testimony and doggedly uncovered unflattering facts on the other.  

And more than a thousand former federal prosecutors, from both parties, signing a letter that asserts the obvious: but for the fact that this man is the president, he’d have been indicted on several counts already, based on the evidence that Mueller laid out.

As for who is to make the final determination on holding a colorably corrupt president accountable to the rule of law, Mueller wrote:

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of the office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

Public Service Announcement

To make it as easy as possible to understand the necessity for holding our unaccountable rogue president accountable, in the only constitutional way remaining, I provide three links.   

The first is a two minute clip that shows how radically public opinion can change as more information is provided live on TV.   It goes on to a short, compelling presentation of the importance, in a democracy, of nobody being above the law.   It’s cued up for you here.

Few Americans are going to read a 448 page report to decide if Trump deserves to be impeached or not.   Here is the summary Bob Mueller prepared for Bill Barr to release, a day or two before Barr wrote his own “summary” that spun the findings “no collusion, no obstruction, basically exoneration.”  Scroll down to Volume Two on obstruction, the cover-up.  A ten or fifteen minute read that will reward your time by fleshing out the evidence and giving you hope about justice ultimately prevailing.    It also contains some fascinating details and is a very easy read.  

The third item to consider is Mueller’s remarkable one page letter to Barr, his boss.  It was written in response to Barr’s deliberate public distortions of Mueller’s findings and politely but firmly says “what the fuck?  You are fucking lying, dude!”

Here is a copy of the letter on FOX News.   Ooops.  Nothing to see here, but spin (you can actually read it, but you have to figure out how).

Here is a direct link to Mueller’s March 27 letter to Barr, written as soon as Barr started publicly distorting the substance and findings of the Mueller report. 

A concerned citizen doing what he can to keep fellow citizens informed by facts, rather than enflamed by inflammatory talking points repeated over and over and over.

Three comments from a reader

I rarely get comments on this sparsely read blahg.  Yesterday I got two.  I had an email for each, asking if I approved the comment for “publication”.  The comments were from the same person.  I read the first, and then the second.   The second email had this red warning banner at the top:

Screen shot 2019-06-02 at 3.13.02 PM.png

I see now that I have a third comment from Boxerpaws.   So I’ll answer them all here, to err on the side of safety.  I hope you read these replies, my friend, and thank you for your comments.

The comment on  this post

the IRS would have busted Pres Trump if they had found any wrongdoing. What Fred Trump did or didn’t do is irrelevant.

The IRS has a special unit that deals with the tax returns of very wealthy citizens.   Over the years they collected a tiny amount of money from Fred for his under-reporting income, undervaluing assets and other tax mistakes or violations.  Young Donald and his siblings were lifetime beneficiaries of Fred’s tax avoidance schemes and certainly knew, as adults, that he was fraudulently funneling money to them using fake corporations they were officers of, and his other tax dodges.   Did you read the massive NY Times investigative piece?  The Failing NYT was never sued by the president’s many lawyers, in spite of the threat printed in the article itself. 

President Trump will not produce any financial documents … because?   There is every appearance that the president is lying about the longest tax audit in American history.  His appeal of a judge’s decision in the Deutsche Bank case is another example of him being “the most transparent president in history”.  He has been known, on occasion, to lie.  This is something you have to admit, I think.

Also Fred, in old age, had lawyers summon Donald and the other siblings to make sure now President Trump’s plan to become sole executor of Fred’s wealth never happened.   Don’t forget how many times Fred had thrown in tens of millions ($400,000,000 in today’s dollars) to insulate his reckless (or audacious, if you prefer) son from multiple business disasters.

Your comments on this post

“Barr did what Mueller asked, but he waited a few weeks before releasing anything from Mueller.”  Barr had no requirement to release it at all. He released it both for public consumption and Congress.

OK.  But as the sentences that follow the quote point out, during those weeks Barr waited, with Mueller’s fully redacted executive summary and a letter from Mueller disputing Barr’s conclusion of “no collusion, no obstruction, exoneration” in his hands as of March 27, Americans were deliberately misled by Barr.   The narrative that Americans absorbed in the course of almost a month of redacting, in the absence of the details of numerous incidents of obstruction of justice that were laid out in the report (and in the executive summary) was false.  

Have you read the Mueller summary outlining the ten or more examples of obstruction ?  It’s a ten minute read, all Americans should read it.

Mueller told Barr in the presence of witnesses that the DOJ ruling that a sitting Pres cannot be indicted had no bearing on his decision. So which time did Mueller lie? The first time to Barr et al or the 2nd time at his ‘presser’. 2. there is no LAW stating that a sitting Pres can’t be indicted. It amounts to a DOJ guideline. Nothing more,nothing less. IF a sitting Pres couldn’t be indicted for a crime he could rob a bank/murder his wife and get away with it as long as he was in office. Use your head.

Let’s assume that Barr was telling the truth, and witnesses can verify that Mueller lied to him over and over at a meeting when he said under no circumstances could he have indicted President Trump using the evidence compiled in his report.   How does that change anything dozens of witnesses said, under penalty of perjury, in Mueller’s report?   Also note that Trump and Barr are the only two people we know of ever to accuse Republican Eagle Scout Mueller of dishonesty. 

Do we assume, if Mueller lied to Barr about that policy decision, and even falsely claimed that a certain regulation required him to abide by the OLC guideline about indicting a sitting president, that he’s lying about everything in his report, including all of the sworn testimony of many witnesses?  

If so, doesn’t the same assumption apply to President Trump, who sometimes lies?

The standard for impeachment is not the same as for a criminal trial — they do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president committed crimes.   To remove an impeached public official from office they only have to show, to the satisfaction of the American people and 65 Senators, how he abused his power to undermine our constitutional system.

As candidate Trump himself observed, he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters.  This seems to be the case, if you ignore all the findings in the Mueller Report and focus only on whether Mueller lied to Barr about one key point during a closed door meeting.  

Let us turn to President Trump’s strong refutation of the Mueller report. Here is the president’s strong case that Mueller is a vicious enemy of his, with a giant “conflict of interest”.  

How am I not using my head?

Thanks again for these comments.


Pathetic Porcine Puppet

The president clearly has nothing to hide.  That’s why he is suing Deutsche Bank to prevent them from turning over his subpoenaed financial records, having his Secretary of the Treasury refuse to provide other subpoenaed records and preventing everybody who ever worked for him (excluding the close associates who have been convicted of crimes and are serving prison time) from cooperating with Congressional investigations.  A clear sign that the man is a victim of vicious, inhuman partisans who only want to bring him down for no reason at all!

Enter the shameful new Attorney General, the man Laurence Tribe accurately called a “pathetic porcine puppet of a puerile president”.   Barr speaks clearly, even under oath: yes, the president is right to think that spies were illegally gathering information against him as he ran for president.  Yes, Mueller basically exonerated him, although his DOJ is “investigating” whether Mueller and his team conducted an illegal investigation of the president.  

Then, always on message,  he said this on CBS, immediately after Mueller reiterated that everything Congress needs to protect our democracy is written in his unread report:

“Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good.  They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have.”

Dig it, you smug and true-believing disgrace.

Screen shot 2019-05-07 at 6.05.07 PM.png

NOT unhinged!

The innocent man Bill Barr explained that even Mueller acknowledged was angry and frustrated during the two year witch hunt, defended himself to a group of reporters yesterday after Mueller and Barr spoke to America.   Here is what the president said about Mueller:

I think he is a total (sic) conflicted person.  I think Mueller is a true Never-Trumper.  He’s somebody that dislikes Donald Trump, he’s somebody that didn’t get a job that he requested, that he wanted very badly, and then he was appointed, and despite that, and despite FORTY MILLION DOLLARS, eighteen Trump-haters, including people that worked for Hillary Clinton, and some of the worst human beings on earth, they got nothing.  It’s pretty amazing.

He went on to elaborate about Mueller’s conflict of interest:

I think he’s totally conflicted because, as you know, he wanted to be the FBI director and I said no, as you know, I had a business dispute after he left the FBI, we had a business dispute, not a nice one, he wasn’t happy with what I did and I don’t blame him, but I had to do it because it was the right thing to do, but I had a business dispute and he loves Comey, you look at the relationship that those two, so whether it’s love or deep like, but he was conflicted.

The “business dispute” (disclosed by Mueller in the report) happened in the 1990s when Mueller tried to get back some membership fees he’d paid to a Trump golf course he was no longer using.   What Mueller “wasn’t happy with… and I don’t blame him” was the Trump club’s refusal to refund any part of the fee.    Fucking so-called facts!

I like the sly insinuation that Mueller is a deeply closeted gay man, like Roy Cohn, enraged at Trump on behalf of his disgraced lover, the also deeply closeted Jim Comey.

I say, let’s have this sort of presidential rebuttal every day, during the long weeks of the impeachment hearings.  Wouldn’t that be cool?   McGahn, a lying Trump hater and a so-called note-taking snake!   Sater, a fucking Russian mafia Jew scumbag and liar!   Flynn, a self-serving, lying piece of traitorous shit!  Etc.

NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, total and complete EXONERATION!   Extremely stable genius!!   USA!  USA!!!!