monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

This emperor has had absolutely no clothes from the very beginning. The only thing in doubt all along has been the Republican Party’s complicity.

And that complicity remains. If anything, it is intensifying. As Jim Fallows constantly points out, any single Republican senator — Sasse, Corker, Collins, Graham, Paul, Murkowski — could check this president by voting against him, on any number of issues, including the protection of Robert Mueller’s investigation.

snip

The Times’ Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous is part of that complicity, knowing full well what a nightmare this president is, and yet sticking with him for policy gains he prefers. For that, he is part of the problem rather than the solution. But, in his defense, he is in a very tough spot. The shrinking GOP base is more committed to this mad king than to any other Republican president at this point in his term. Almost every Republican senator knows that the president is profoundly unfit, a danger to the republic and the world, a madman child in charge of Crazytown … and does absolutely nothing at all.

“If left to his own accord, our country would look somewhat like Venezuela,” Senator Bob Corker said this week. “It shocks me, some of the things — as if you treat your friends in one way and your political enemies in another way. Most presidents understand their role is different than this one does. He’s remarkable in his lack of appreciation for democratic values and institutions. And I think that’s where some of the greatest damage is being done to this country.” If this is true — as it manifestly is — and Corker will nonetheless do nothing within his constitutional power to stop it, even though he’s fricking retiring this year and has nothing to lose, what is a patriotic public servant supposed to do?

snip

Unfortunately, there is no case for publicizing any of this anonymously in the New York Times. Far from helping his cause, Anonymous has undermined it. Worse, he has triggered this president — which was completely predictable — into exactly the kind of unhinged behavior Anonymous is so worried about. Maybe the op-ed was designed to buttress Woodward’s portrayal of a dangerous two-track administration. Maybe it was a way of salving his own conscience in the wake of McCain’s death. Maybe it was a misbegotten attempt to calm those of us horrified by what Trump is doing to the office and liberal democracy. But as a political act, it was indeed gutless as well as pointless.

the National Enquirer who broke the John Edwards scandal.

The op-ed, published online Wednesday, was written by a senior official in the Trump administration, according to the Times. It depicts a “two-track presidency” in which President Trump acts according to his own whims while many of his top aides, in the author’s words, work to thwart his “more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

Trump said the investigation was needed for national security reasons. It is unclear what law he believes was broken.

Quote:

In a parliamentary system, getting rid of such a terrible leader would be relatively easy: .

Quote:

In a parliamentary system, getting rid of such a terrible leader would be relatively easy: .

Not as easy as you'd think.

Woodrow Wilson's wife finished his term in office after a stroke.

And a reporter who got word of it could have agreed to keep it to himself for the sake of national security.

"He who writes on bathroom walls
Rolls his **** in little balls
But he who reads those NYT words of wit (demokkkrats, libtards, snowflakes)
EATS THOSE LITTLE BALLS OF ****......"

Like the reporter that hid the picture of Obama and Farrakhan?

In 2005, a news photographer took a picture of Barack Obama smiling beside Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. It didn't surface until yesterday.

That's because, not long after the shutter snapped, at the urging of the CBC, the photographer, Askia Muhammad, gave it to Farrakhan's staff "and basically swore secrecy" out of a concern that it might have "made a difference" in the political future of the President-to-be.

We should be clear: There is no sign that Obama ever palled around with Farrakhan, or that he gave quarter to his anti-white, anti-Semitic hate. To the contrary; he condemned it repeatedly. Guilt by association is odious, especially when it comes with an extra layer of racism.

But this image was newsworthy. It was taken by a journalist. It should have seen the light of day.

An explosive new photograph has been released of former President Barack Obama smiling and posing with radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The photo was reportedly taken by far-left political activist Askia Muhammad in 2005 during a secret Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill one evening.

After taking the sickening photo[editorialize much?], Muhammad said he decided to never let it see the light of day because he feared it would cause catastrophic damage to Obama, who “had already become the darling of national Democratic politics. And the scent of a presidential run was strong.”

The photo that never saw the light of day: Obama with Farrakhan in 2005 https://t.co/nUrPbYVy0q pic.twitter.com/MrjqRdJy9G

He was still a state senator at the time.