71 thoughts on “Kayleigh”

  1. Chris Wallace is why I turned off Fox News. Even CBS News had to decency to fire Dan Rather.

    1. He has gone off the deep end. During the Obama years, he appeared tough, tempered, and impartial. Now? Zero professionalism and the Chris Wallace as he is at home, is a bit of a small minded person incapable of being self aware of his own biases.

  2. Jonah has changed, and not for the better. Makes me wonder how he could even have written “Liberal Fascism” with that incipient Trump Derangement Syndrome waiting to come out.

  3. I give the aptly named Jonah a break. His “Liberal Fascism” book gave conservatives some tools to break their fear of the “F” word.

  4. What’s disappointing is how you constantly defend an ignoramus POTUS who wouldn’t recognize a Conservative principle if it bit him on the butt. Trump is a cancer on our country and I say this as someone who has always considered himself right of center. I’m disgusted by the sycophants in the Republican party who cover for Trumps horrible behavior and how he seeks always to divide and never to unite. Thank God there are still some principled Conservatives out there like Jonah Goldberg.

      1. Rand, back in November 2016 I would have agreed with you that Mr. Trump is terrible, but less so than not any Democrat, with Ms. Clinton was far, far worse, in my opinion, mainly for wanting to start a war with Russia over Syria.

        Since then, to my relief, President Trump has been far from terrible. Kept us out of more expeditionary wars, appointed two Supreme Court justices who go by the law rather than make stuff up, “going to the mat” on one of them, thanks to Senator McConnell, more appeals court judges appointed than one could have dreamed, got Mr. Lopez Obrador to follow UN rules on handling of Central American refugees crossing his border, strong economy until this virus thing, but saving our economy from meltdown without compromising measures to protect health, with the economic signs for “the reopening” looking favorable, beat back a Russian Collusion hoax, which combined with the Thomas Friedman-Hillary Clinton stance on Russia/Syria was a hate crime against Orthodox Christians, beat back a Senate conviction on impeachment for doing what he should have been doing about international corruption by high-profile Americans, an impeachment voted on by Democrats elected in 2018 on the promise that they would not make impeachment a Congressional goal.

        But no, to some people, Libertarian/Conservative oriented people no less, he is not just less than expected, he remains terrible. And for arguing that he has been actually pretty good, thank-you-very-much, I, along with many of the regulars on your fine Web site, are Republican-fellow-travelling Kool-Aid drinkers?

        Who is commenter Farview who we have never seen around here anyway that Rand has to defend his record of considering Mr. Trump as being “terrible”?

        I close by linking to the manifesto of a Trump-sympathetic blogger who is no one’s sycophantic fool

        https://spandrell.com/about/

        I call special attention to the headings “Status Points theory”, “Point Deer, Make Horse” and “Signaling spirals.” Far be it for anyone defending Donald Trump to be gaining status points on any Web site where a person can comment under their own name, to “point deer, make horse” by going along to get along with the opinions of the host of a Web site not commenting under a “handle”, or similarly engaged in signaling their conformity to opinions that can be “expressed out in the open on the Web.”

        1. When I say he’s terrible, I’m referring to him as a person. I’m happy with his policies, by and large, and desperately want him to win again, and grab the House back.

          1. I suspect that as a person, he is much different than how he acts in front of hostile reporters. I have yet to see anyone deal with the DNC media effectively. The way Trump acts is only partially effective as it isn’t a strategy that wins them over. But is that even a game that can be won?

            Behind the curtain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkzJ4mKnr9A

        2. To answer your question, PM, I strongly suspect that Fairview is a “Moby.” His post (besides its formulaic sound) reminds me of all those posts from “lifelong Republicans” who announced online that they were voting for Obama.

          1. Bilwick, I was a Republican until 2016. I actually believe that Conservative principles are more important than kowtowing to ignorant demagogue. How can you support this conspiracy-theory loving, Putin ass-kissing, thin-skinned buffoon? He is a horrible human being. In what way are tariffs Conservative? How are these massive budgets Conservative. The man is a national disgrace and shows every sign of being mentally unbalanced.

          2. Farview…

            This:

            “Putin ass-kissing”

            Demonstrates you are thoroughly delusional.

            The facts scream otherwise.

          3. Here’s the thing. I was a life long Republican until 2016 too. Then the RNC came up with this requirement for Trump, where he had to agree to accept the election outcome, in writing. This is superfluous, as the RNC has rules that must be followed, and thus all the candidates had to accept the outcome. But the argument was made that Trump could pull out and run third party, so they got him to agree not to do so. It was ruthless behavior on the part of the RNC, but ok.

            Later in the primary, key members of the RNC started realizing that Trump is building a near unsurmountable lead. They don’t want him to win, which is fine, but then decide to put their thumb on the scales to prevent him from winning. That’s a problem to me. First, it ignores the democratic process of the primary which expresses the will of the people. That’s bad, particularly since they demanded Trump accept in writing to do so. The second is in their “wisdom”, the RNC decided to back John “hadn’t won third in a primary to this point” Kasich as their horse to beat Trump. They pushed Rubio out and just ignored Cruz, who was polling 2nd behind Trump. That’s bad and stupid. At that point, I no longer considered myself a “Republican”, because the RNC no longer had rules that it cared to abide. If they don’t have rules and can play loose, then so would I.

            Here’s the thing to wit about Bilwick’s comment. I don’t see the need to express all the above prior to posting any comments about Trump or the RNC. The reality is, I’ve always made up my own mind, which is why I backed Cruz as Senator in Texas over the RNC groomed David “do you know who I am” Dewhurst. There’s no point in establishing some sort of bona fides to speak my mind.

            But the icing on the cake is truly: “Putin ass-kissing”. This is always expressed without evidence (other than pushing the well established now fake dossier). It truly is the signature of a careless hack that simply hates Trump and assumes others are too stupid to know the signer is just bullshit. But here’s the thing, there is plenty of evidence of Putin ass-kissing from Trump’s predecessors:

            Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, whose husband tied US space policy to the Russians with the International Space Station. This would result in over a billion in financial transfer from the US to Russia over the next two decades.

            What exactly did W. Bush do to stop Putin’s war in Georgia? What Putin did was clear, he captured just enough territory that a critical valve to the Southern Caucuses pipeline ended up in Russia territory (more to come about this later). Whatever one claims President Bush did, the results still worked in Putin’s favor.

            The same point can be made about President Obama as Putin annexed Crimea. Sure, Obama applied economic sanctions, but all that did was sanction Putin’s actions so long as Putin paid off the US to do so. Russia still owns Crimea. Russia also shot down a civilian 777 with no calls from the International Criminal Court that anyone be held accountable. And Obama handed over control of Syria’s chemical weapon supply to Russia per Putin’s request.

            What exactly has Trump done to kiss Putin’s ass that compares to any of the above? I did see where Trump chastised publicly Merkle for making a gas deal with Russia that undermined NATO. See, when she made that deal, she put’s Germany economy in the hands of Russia to supply natural gas to power that economy. She could have received gas from Azerbaijan and Turkey, and BP (an UK company) was finishing a pipeline to provide just such natural gas. But she turned her back on NATO countries and dealt with Russia. And to her benefit, why not? After all, Russia still controlled the tap to Southern Caucuses pipeline thanks to President Bush.

            So to my fellow former life long Republican; either explain yourself in some detail, or recognize that we got your number from the very first post.

        1. I noticed too. The people who use such statements always seem to be projecting.

          Trump isn’t really being defended in this post as much as his spokesperson, who is reasonably pushing back on grandstanding reporters. I typically don’t watch politicians at all, nor news, nor spokespersons talking to news persons. However, I did watch the one clip where Kayleigh was asked if she wished to take back a rhetorical statement made early in this COVID discussion. Her response was fair to the insipid question by the reporter. I disagreed with the hyperbole that she “dropped a bombshell”, but she did give turn-about a fair play.

        2. When did this “Be a uniter not a divider” mean anything other than “Agree with my agenda or be branded as a racist Fascist meanie“…?

        3. “how he seeks always to divide and never to unite.”

          Me, I don’t want to unite with people who want to make me less free. I only want to unite with people who want to help get me MORE free. As Robert Heinlien wrote:

          “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. “

          1. Exactly so. I am thoroughly tired of this nonsense about ‘being a uniter, not a divider’ promulgated by those who labor day and night to divide everyone based upon every conceivable criteria.

            To those that wish us to compromise our values as the price to ‘unite’ with them….no sale…

        4. No my true partisan orientation is to true Conservative principles not to a cult of personality.

          1. Again, Fairview, who would you put in the White House as a substitute? Would it be someone higher or lower on that statist scale than Trump? And please specify if you think them lower, why? I, myself, am a free trader, but I would put up with a certain amount of tariffs in order to preserve the Second Amendment along with dismantling most of the statist bureaucracy and deep-sixing the Deep State,

          2. Politics is the art of the practical, not the art of the possible (to say nothing of the art of the impossible).

            I’m not a fan of tariffs, deficits, mass surveillance, the DoJ seeking to put back doors in strong encryption, the “living Constitution”, etc. I am a fan of the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd, although I do not own a gun), a non-activist judiciary, a less interventionist foreign policy, less sneering paternalism among the chattering classes, etc. I mostly describe myself as a small-l libertarian (i.e., not a member of the Libertarian party, but aligned with broadly libertarian principles).

            Given the above, who was I supposed to support in 2016? Gary Johnson? No chance of winning, and one thing that happened in 2016 is that I became thoroughly and unfortunately disabused of the idea that “inside most Americans, there’s a libertarian trying to get out”. And HRC’s stated policies were and are antithetical to the principles I hold dear. Trump, flawed as he was and is, holds positions way closer to mine than any Democrat with the possible exception of Jim Webb, who you may remember got absolutely nowhere as a Democratic candidate in 2016.

            So this is where the NeverTrumpers part ways with any semblance of reality. Your purity of essence is laughable. There isn’t any “true conservative” with any chance to win the presidency in 2020. The Democrats are an even bigger shitshow than they were in 2016. You can either hold your nose and support Trump, or hold your nose and support Biden, or sit it out and carp from the sidelines. But don’t try to pretend that choices 2 and 3 are anything but capitulation to enemies of freedom and conservatism.

          3. I think tariffs are great….if NO OTHER COUNTRY ever used tariffs against us, then I could buy the “tariffs bad” argument. But that’s not reality. Trump is fighting fire with fire, and tariffs can have a way of motivating countries to act in our interests….like when Trump threatened to slap tariffs on Mexico, and they then suddenly decided to get serious about closing their southern border, and not let Guatemalan caravans transit the country to get to the US. And after the Wuhan bat flu, I hope Trump tariffs the HELL out of China, so that companies relocate somewhere else to avoid the tariffs.

          4. Farview is not an appropriate handle. You can’t see very far when you are looking up your own colon.

          5. Indeed, if Trump is bad, give us something better. I backed Romney and McCain when they were provided, and both of them turned their back on large portions of their supporters. McCain scripted the opportunity to cast the deciding vote to retain Obamacare. Romney voted against all the other Republican members of Congress to support Trump’s impeachment. These are not conservative behaviors.

            Talk of tariffs and “closed borders” are bullshit. If you don’t like Tariffs, than loudly denounce there use against the US. Otherwise, don’t hamstring Americans by demanding our economy be penalized by holding a principle not shared with our trade partners. And the notion that closed borders isn’t libertarian is all a play on words. Sure, Ayn Rand was against iron curtain borders. However, her ideal libertarian, John Galt, demanded Dagny Taggart adhere to a code in order to join his community, and would banish her and anyone else who refused to abide to that code. Trump and his supporters simply demand the same from those who wish to immigrate here and become citizens. Agree to follow our laws!

      3. Obama was worse president, ever. As Ex president Jimmy Carter said.
        I always thought he said it, because Carter was known worse President ever.
        But now I allow myself the idea that maybe Carter was smart enough know more about Obamagate, before it became a hast tag.

        1. P J O’Rourke had a tongue-in-cheek essay of how President Carter, who even liberals have distanced themselves from, was a much better president than Mr. Clinton, around whom liberals were rallying to defend.

          One of his lines has that of all things, Mr. Carter’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Joseph Califano was actually Pro Life. And compared with Mr. Clinton’s HHS Secretary, a lot prettier (ba-doom boom!)

    2. Yeah, “principled conservatives” who supported Hillary because of their dislike of Trump. The same Hillary who would have been stacking the courts with liberal judges at all levels. That alone was reason to vote for anyone but her. The same Hillary that got a free pass for doing things that I not only would have lost my security clearance and my job, I quite likely would have gone to jail for doing. But Orange Man Bad, better to vote for Hillary than Trump. After all, so voting for someone who is in direct opposition to everything a conservative claims to stand for was preferable to voting for Trump. And they’ll do the same thing again this year because “principles”. Those “principled conservatives” are not only losers, they’re incredibly stupid. If that shoe fits you, wear it with pride.

    4. I’d prefer a less pugnacious President but I can’t abide a system where Democrats are free to call people the worst names in the book and its verboten to stand up to them. NeverTrumpers have not made the sale that non-Democrats should accept being a permanent persecuted underclass. Often, these are the same people who fell for the Russian Collusion scam and dance to the every tune the DNC media tells them to. Also, the same “principled” people who always feel justified in acting without any principles.

      Trump’s policies have been great. I can’t see inside his mind, but his policies have been very conservative. You might be one of these people who are overly susceptible to being manipulated by the media. I encourage you to fact check every article you read and go straight to the source material rather than rely on a media whose goal it is to manipulate you. And rather than rely on the DNC media to tell you what people think, try talking to more people and find out from them yourself. In both cases, you will find a wide divergence in what the media tells you and objective reality.

      1. It became Hyper-Partisanship when the other side (other than Leftists, that is) got tired to doing what the Left wanted every time. Then the rhetoric and name calling got nastier and personal.

      2. “I’d prefer a less pugnacious President….”

        I don’t think he’s been pugnacious ENOUGH. As Stalin said when the Germans and Soviets agreed to the Non-Aggression Pact (from a Guardian article from 2014):

        “Seventy-five years ago, on 23 August 1939, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia stunned the world by announcing that they had concluded a non-aggression pact, committing themselves not to aid each other’s enemies or to engage in hostile acts against one another. Stalin knew the pact would not be popular. “For many years now,” he said, “we have been pouring buckets of shit on each other’s heads, and our propaganda boys could not do enough in that direction. And now, all of a sudden, are we to make our peoples believe that all is forgotten and forgiven.”

        The difference here as I see it, is the media and Democrats have been pouring buckets of shit over Republicans for years, and apparently, per the “Well, I never!!” NeverTrumptard crowd, the proper response from Republicans is “Thank you sir, may I have another?” Screw that….Tweet away, Mr Trump! And keep bitch-slapping the press, K-Mac….or as I’ve seen her referred to elsewhere, “Honey Badger”

        “When you hate the china shop, you love the bull” (not my saying, found it elsewhere)

  5. I think what happened is that Jonah got too much crap from the more rabid Trump fandom and it soured him on partisan politics. He’s now trying to be “above it all”, as if this is all some sort of harmless game. For him I suppose it is, as he feels protected from the any damage the left might do. For the rest of us it’s a bit more important.

    1. Yes, he was duped and can’t come to gripes with it.

      Obama and Hillary could have chosen any country to frame Trump with, so why Russia? Russia wasn’t chosen because Democrats hate Russia. Democrats have always had an affinity for Russia. Russia was chosen because Republicans have a strong distrust of Russia. Russia was chosen in order to drive a wedge between different groups of Republicans, specifically Republicans who are motivated by image (being respectable) and who are easily manipulated by passive consumption of media. The “elites” of the party fall into these categories.

      A lot of these people spend a lot of time on Twitter and are incapable of dealing with virtual conversations. They think the interactions they have a representative of the entire off-Twitter population, and they aren’t. Because their whole world is Twitter, they can’t separate what is fed to them from what is actually happening. They fall for peer pressure in determining what is important, popular, or is “news”. And because they are so super smart, they can’t tell if the people tweeting at them are real people, people playing a role, people joking, or just bots.

      These people call everyone Russian Bots but they never stopped to think that other groups might be seeking to influence them. When the Democrats picked Russia to use as a wedge, it was part of a larger coordinated effort to calve off segments of the Republican party. The Jonahs on the right were the targets and I can guarantee they never once considered that the way they turned against their own was in large part due to being manipulated.

      To be explicitly clear, there was a misinformation campaign run by Democrats where social media interactions were instigated by party operatives to manipulate people like Jonah into turning against their own. And the social media interactions were just a part of the campaign.

      Really good manipulation appears to come from within. Like any good carefully crafted deceit, there are elements of truth. But Jonah, and so many others, got suckered. They hold themselves in too high regard to see or admit it. Everyday that goes by, it become more apparent, to everyone but themselves, how separated from reality they are and we are left with an unkempt overweight Jonah ranting like a lunatic.

      Is there a way back for the Jonahs? There is but while they were shown the path to their descent by others, they chose to jump off the cliff themselves. Someone can’t show them the way back to the top but they will have to scale that cliff themselves too. The first step is hitting bottom, the second is self awareness, and the third is looking up. Humans always fail at the second step.

    2. I think Jonah et al hated Trump long before there was any serious Trump fandom. NRO went full anti-Trump before Trump was a thing. I assume he just offended their elite sensibilities in ways that conventional, country-club Republican politicians didn’t.

      1. I still say they were all never Cruz before never Trump. But then you, George, were also never Cruz, perhaps for other reasons. Why this matters is that I think the hatred comes from outsiders that disrupt the Party system. Cruz overthrew the then Texas Lt.Governor, who essentially ran the Texas GOP while the Governor worked to get in the White House. Trump defeated all those groomed by the GOP to be Presidential contenders. To be a contender, you had to second your own principles to those of the Party. Trump and Cruz never put their principles 2nd. The same is true of Rand Paul.

  6. As far as I can tell, the major impetus behind most the NeverTrumpers boils down to two things:

    1. He’s so incredibly gauche!
    2. If I say anything good about Trump, I won’t get invited to the good parties!

    I agree with our host that Trump is a terrible person – vain, thin-skinned, prone to petty lying, a serial adulterer, hypocritical, etc. However, he does seem to believe in America as a worthy endeavor. The opposition is not just terrible, but, well, the only word that works is fascist, and seems dedicated to destroying America as a worthy endeavor – Tom Wolfe was chronicling this behavior 50+ years ago, and it’s only gotten worse. I will vote for Trump in a heartbeat over the nomenklatura / mandarins / apparatchiks of the Left.

    1. “I agree with our host that Trump is a terrible person – vain, thin-skinned, prone to petty lying, a serial adulterer, hypocritical, etc.”

      For centuries that was normally how US Senators were described.
      Trump does not seem to act like US Senator.
      Best description of Trump is the Destructor.
      The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man Destructor.

      Who innocently says, he didn’t think it would be so tough.

    2. Trump as a human being has his failings, and no sane person can deny this. With that said, I would prefer a deeply flawed man with policies that I can defend to a paragon of virtue who supports policies obnoxious to me.

      As for his flaws, Lincoln (referring to Grant) said it best….”I cannot spare this man, he fights”

      1. I agree, but you’re introducing a false dichotomy. There are no paragons of virtue in the race for president, nor have their ever been.

        1. A fair point, and I should have phrased my argument more artfully. You are absolutely correct that there are no paragons of virtue, but even if such individual existed, I would prefer Trump with all of his manifold flaws to this (admittedly non-existent) paragon with obnoxious policies.

          Many years ago, a professor of mine pointed out that during WWII the leader of Germany was a man of the people, a non-drinker, non-smoker who had exemplary respect for women, while the leader of Great Britain was a pompous aristocrat who smoked heavily, drank excessively, and was well know to have cheated on his wife on numerous occasions. With all of that said, it is abundantly clear who was the right man to support.

          Trump’s policies have been (on the balance) quite good, and he has been willing to take the fight to those who wish to enslave us. With that in mind, I am willing to tolerate his human frailties.

  7. POTUS gave them more than enough chances to be civilized. They refused. Kayleigh can go as low as they do and look hot in the process. She is a bit like bringing a shotgun to kill mice, but perhaps now they will get the message.

  8. Trump was an actor on TV. What you see in public may be an act. I’d say he’s a pretty Presidential act. Lots better than the marshmallow we have as Prime Minister of Australia who is desperately hoping that people will mistake his act for leadership.

  9. The only difference between Trump and the rest of the presidents is that the rest behaved in a gentlemanly fashion in public.

    In private a lot of them were total bastards. Just look at LBJ and Kennedy (all of the Kennedys actually). They spoke and acted, in private just like Trump does in public.

    My sensibilities are not delicate and I have no illusions that all other presidents were choir boys.

    We need Trump to be Trump to punch back twice as hard until the Left and the media are crushed.

    At least with Trump what you see is what you get. I don’t see any pretense there. I saw lots with, say, Obama and the Clintons.

    Trump’s policies are fine….very good.

  10. Goldberg is a puzzle to me. You would think that the author of LIBERAL FASCISM would realize that the most crucial question regarding any politician is: how much or how little does he/she support liberty?

    I always use my own personal scale, the Statist Scale, aka the Coercion Meter: 0 being pure libertarian anarchism a la Rothbard or LeFevre, 10 being total tyranny a la Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It isn’t an exact science of course, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, Trump is a 5. Which “principled” conservative would they offer as a Trump alternative who is lower than 5?

    I remember when Trump was running for the nomination getting into several online debates with the Dumb Trumpkins, the less educated Trump supporters who were more like cultists. One of them referred to Goldberg as a “left winger.” This amazed me, but people do change their opinions. I asked this person, “What made Goldberg as left-winger’? Had he gone higher than 5 on the Statist Scale? The answer this guy had was that Goldberg didn’t like Trump. Call me old-fashioned, but in my day a person actually had to be a statist to be a left-winger. Now it seems that the parody National Review cover “Hillary for President” was closer to the mark than the satirist intended.

    1. That makes for interesting thought. Going with the scale, I’d put Obama higher up than Hillary, because I do think Hillary and Bill enjoyed disobeying things so much that they couldn’t be a full 10. And Obama’s higher, because I think he would if he could, but he too falls short of 10 due to lack of leadership strength of the three 10 definers. So if Hillary is an 8, where would that put Trump?

      I’d say Trump’s been a bit more libertarian in actually removing regulations than either Bush. I know many that don’t consider either Bush different than Hillary because of HW’s participation in the NWO, which W certainly didn’t shy away from either. This probably explains what appears to be an easy jump for Jonah and others. But I think we could drop the Bush’s down one notch to at least 7, and many of us might have argued no higher than 6 when they were office.

      Of course, this all tightens the scale. And how do you get to below 5? Also, it makes a bit of sense that it would be heavily weighted in the higher numbers, because a true 1 or 2 libertarian would likely shy away from running for an official office. Can you imagine John Galt actually running for President? It took a lot to move Dagny Taggart to his line of thinking, but she’s the closest of that group to seek an official leadership title. I think most 1 and 2’s would stay in the NGO world leading an activist organization than being tied to managing a government.

  11. Trump is a terrible person? By what criteria? Because he’s had multiple (sequential) wives and affairs with other women — well in the past? OMG! What else?

    With regard to this critical question I’d like to point to a posting by Volokh Conspiracist and George Mason University law professor David Bernstein (who is personally far from being a Trump supporter, more a “NeverTrumper” in fact, though as a libertarian he’s no leftist) — who put it up in a Facebook post earlier last year — which is to say: after Trump ex-attorney Michael Cohen’s public testimony, but before release of the Mueller Report. As Bernstein noted at the time: [quoting…]

    Donald Trump is a man of low character. But he’s apparently quite careful in avoiding doing things that are obviously illegal. Or, at least, that’s what I surmise from the fact that his personal lawyer of 10 years really can’t come up with anything he did that was obviously illegal.

    [/unQuote]

    I think this is almost jaw-droppingly noteworthy. How many millionaire/billionaire businessmen (and -women) — working for half a century in (say) building construction (with all the political compromises which must be made in that line of work) — as seen, furthermore, from the vantage point of a decade-long relationship with his [turned] personal attorney! — could this be said? Not many at all, I suggest.

    Beyond that, how many presidents in America’s history could have withstood the kind of fanatical legal persecution epitomized by Mueller’s pack of partisan prosecutors? Darned few, too, in that instance!

    I say it’s extremely doubtful, therefore, that Trump could really be the flagrant, corrupt-to-the-core criminal that so many on the left have managed to utterly convince themselves of — despite the even more striking lack of evidence that’s turned up as a result of millions of dollars spent and hundreds of interviews (et al.) conducted by the Mueller team — to no result.

    All this was realizable at the time of Cohen’s testimony. The arrival since of the Mueller Report, DoJ Inspector General Horowitz’s report, and multitudinous other documents which have been declassified since merely adds multiple exclamation points to this conclusion.

    It’s certainly disconcerting to realize as a consequence, however, that Trump may be just about the squeakiest clean president in American history! Talk about being a “terrible” person, that takes the cake!

    1. I don’t think he’s a criminal. I consider him an uncultured, unread boor who is his own worst enemy. But I’m glad that he is president, and not her, and I’ll be glad if he wins reelection over whoever the Democrat nominee ends up being, and takes back the House.

      1. He is a world traveler that is experienced with many other cultures, he has a foreign wife, he went to elite colleges, but the culture he expresses is American. It is refreshing to have a President who embraces American culture. That shouldn’t be confused for ignorance though.

        1. One of Trump’s ex-wives was also foreign-born.

          Agree that it is good to again have a President who is not defensive and apologetic about American culture.

      2. Trump is certainly a boor. Also a braggart while we’re on the subject. Not that previous presidents haven’t exhibited such tendencies – LBJ was certainly also both these things.

        As to sexual peccadillos on Trump’s backtrail, he seems to have figured out, at least, that he needs to keep that sort of thing in abeyance for the term of his presidency. That makes him smarter, as a practical matter, than Harding, Kennedy or Clinton.

        Trump is disdained by elites less for his personal shortcomings than for his disinclination to try hiding them.

        How unread/uncultured Trump is, I don’t know. But being well-read is not in an identity relationship with being smart or wise. Bush 43 was a voracious reader but was not as good a President as Trump has been.

        I think the main thing about Trump that makes some on the right – perhaps you among them – as well as the entirety of the left disdainful of him is that he is plainly almost entirely lacking in an intellectual turn of mind. Intellectuals are as tribal as any other self-identified group. But, as with being well-read/cultured by elite standards, being intellectually inclined is not synonymous with intelligence or wisdom.

    2. Because he’s had multiple (sequential) wives and affairs with other women

      That’s the only one I can figure. The US has had a long history of Presidents married to only a single woman. Of course, many had affairs, but they were kept out of the public eye so much, that only historians have been able to prove some impropriety. 50 years ago, that Trump had divorced and remarried would have been a major scandal. But in the era of multi-gender pronouns and gay marriage; divorce and remarriage seems rather reserved to me. Still, Biden and Clintons can pretend to be better thanks to media willing to hide simple facts for them.

      Trump certainly has been devious as a business man, but those who work in business were never turned off by “The Apprentice” and have no problem with the title of “Shark Tank”. Business can be rough. Certainly those that don’t succeed as well as Trump will feel like they’ve been abused. Those that have done better are also likely to abuse Trump by calling him names. As Trump would say, “nothing personal, that’s business”.

      It’s not like Trump presided over an administration that put a lowly submariner in jail for the same crime committed by the Secretary of State, who was given prosecutorial immunity. That seems terrible to me.

      1. A lot of the people who dislike Trump’s character don’t seem bothered by how the Democrats act. If we are to have rules on conduct, they have to apply to everyone, especially since what Trump says is so much milder than what Democrats say.

      2. I agree with your comments, but let me add my own suggestions. What the Political Class ™ really cannot stand about Trump is:

        1) He is a businessman, and thinks like one
        2) He is from Queens, NOT Manhattan
        3) He is not sorry about (1) or (2)

        The visceral dislike of Trump is cultural and class-based, which is why it is so intense and resistant to reason. In a sense, I am pleased about this. If the Left had the sense to have approached Trump with flattery and grace, he might very well have been seduced into ‘moderating’ his views to gain yet more approval. As it happens, he realized quickly (he is not a stupid man) that his only salvation to burn his boats, stick with his principles and move forward.

        1. 4) He unreservedly loves America.

          And has been said many times, he chose the perfect campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. The left goes into convulsions over what is most egregious, the first part, or the word “Again”.

          1. Actually I believe that would have been included in (2), but if you wish to break it out as a separate point, I have no difficulties with the modification.

            Trump doesn’t want to be part of their little clique…that is what they cannot forgive him for…

        3. Which is why I laugh so hard at the common people who also hate Trump because their betters tell them to. He’s a man of the people.

    3. Obama was spying on him with the world’s foremost intelligence agencies, some of them weren’t even American. All of Trump’s communications, financial records, and past business dealings were mined by our intelligence agencies.

      If there were anything there, Obama and the Democrats would have used it already.

  14. Trump hasn’t been proven to have done anything that I haven’t confessed to have done. I’m even on my third wife too! His Daddy was much richer than mine, though.

    I always hated Newt Gingrich until, one day, I met him at a social gathering and he offered to shake my hand. When I did, I said, “Nice hair, Congressman!” He took a look at my own shock of white hair, and laughed. Got in one.

Comments are closed.