What Fate Awaits Trump --- The Presidency or Prison?

There's no question former President Donald Trump is a rich man. After all, he was perpetually on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" with Robin Leach during the 1980's and Robin didn't showcase paupers! Trump is an American legend when it comes to self-promotion as much as he is a mega successful real estate mogul and entrepreneur. He is the originator of the "art of the deal".

Trump has owned numerous high end properties throughout New York City, including the flagship "Trump Towers" with its exclusive condos owned by the "Who's Who" of  high society, and exclusive boutique stores whose names alone ooze money and the historic art deco styled "40 Wall Street" building. 

"The Donald" as he's known has published several books on the "Art of the Deal" as he likes to call his own game theory version of making business deals. He's owned a casino, a airline company, golf courses, and a university. Oh, and he's been President of the United States.

The former president's four year term was fraught with bitter Beltway infighting, backbiting, betrayal, and filled with enough intrigue to fill a Tom Clancy novel. President Trump promised the American People that he would restore our former Republic, which has been hijacked by corporate elites and others who've turned America into a neo-fascist corporatocracy; an oligarchy overseeing what might as well be called a "surveillance state". 

Trump promised Americans that he would "drain the swamp" that is Washington DC  and rid it of its slimy creatures that includes banksters, lobbyists, special interests groups, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. He said he would secure our southern border and reverse illegal immigration (which has become a defacto invasion), which included building a wall, prevent unnecessary wars while rebuilding the military, improve our healthcare system, strengthen Social Security, among other things.

One of Trump's most notable accomplishments occurred even before taking the oath of office as our 45th president, when "the Donald" was successful in doing what few thought could be done. He defeated Hillary Clinton, the darling of liberals everywhere. In fact, polls showed that with 12 days until the election, Hillary was leading everywhere.

Nobody on the Left could believe that Hillary had been denied her due; that there would be no long overdue coronation.  What had happened? Who was to blame---the Russians? The Chinese? Secret backroom financial deals?  Everyone was to blamed except Hillary's hubris.

 The politically inexperienced  "Donald" somehow managed to defeat a former political operative, former First Lady, former U.S. Senator, and former Secretary of State 30 states to 20. The electoral votes, which are what decide elections, not the number of votes cast, went to Trump, the political outsider, by a margin of 304 to 227 (Hillary did carry the popular vote, 48.2% to 46.1%).

The defeat was so complete that Hillary disappeared; some claim she had a literal meltdown while others claimed that she was allegedly secretly planning Trump's financial and political, execution. Regardless, when she reemerged she was a changed person, barely able to conceal her bitterness, anger, and emotional pain.

Trump's four year term was marked with internal and external political fights and delays from both sides of the aisle. Republican leaders no less than their Democrat counterparts couldn't---and wouldn't---come to grips with how an outsider managed to usurp power from the Status Quo.

As a result, they did their best to undermine Trump's Administration at every turn, even resorting to political subterfuge when necessary while the mainstream media launched into  daily efforts at character assassination which continues to present day. 

Trump and many in his administration have faced unprecedented professional and personal attacks resulting in numerous lawsuits and ending political careers. A few were even sent to prison while the investigation into Jeffery Epstein's murder...err...."suicide"...and his alleged island of pedophilia for the rich and famous remains in limbo just as Hunter Biden (Joe Biden's son) supposed bribery and extortion allegations have gone nowhere. I wonder why that is?

Currently Donald Trump has some 91 felony charges pending against him. If convicted on any one of them, he would be disqualified from serving as president, and yet Trump's popularity remains so high that he is unopposed in the Republican Primary.

His early opponents, which included Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Trump's former Vice President, Mike Pence, all bowed out after having been steamrolled early on by Trump. It's worth noting that Scott and Ramaswamy both later endorsed Trump. 

Now he faces his former opponent,  President Joe Biden. However, Biden isn't the same man he was in 2020. He has managed to accomplish virtually nothing of note during his four year in office and few want to see him back in the Oval Office again. His Vice President has consistently been rated the lowest of any Vice President in U.S. history. Lastly, at 81 years of age, Biden's mental facilities are questionable at best.  

Think about this for a moment. With barely 30 days until the GOP Primary, the only candidate standing is the one with some 91 felonies pending against him. Convection on any one of them disqualifies Trump and leaves no one as the Republican Presidential nominee.

Meanwhile, "the Donald" continues battling the charges, and while winning most of them thus far, has managed to rack up more than $540 million dollars in legal bills! In early March 2024, Trump had to put up a $91.6 million dollar bond as he appealed a defamation case against him on filed on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll.

Trump had been ordered to pay $83.3 million dollars in damages for allegedly verbally "attacking" her following the writer's allegations of sexual assault. He was also ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after he was found guilty of libel for sexual assault and defamation in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Trump.

Speaking of lawsuits, Trump has been ordered to pay $383,000 in legal fees following the loss of a lawsuit filed by Orbis Business Intelligence over a controversial information concerning Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (no interference was proven).

He was ordered to pay a whopping $454.4 million dollars for allegedly "misstating" the value of his corporate assets, along with interest. This is part of a larger judgment against Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg in the amount of $465 million dollars. But wait, there's more...much more.

Trump was ordered to pay the New York Times just under $400,000 in legal fees after the court tossed his lawsuit over the newspaper acquiring and publishing his tax records without his permission.  There was also the question as to how the newspaper was able to obtain Trump's private tax records since he didn't authorize their release. I guess that means your private financial information isn't so private after all.

Donald Trump and one of his lawyers, Alina Habba were ordered to jointly pay sanctions over his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats over claims that the 2016 presidential Election was "rigged". The judge order that Habba and Trump pay $937,989.39 following a blistering statement by the judge accusing Trump of trying to further his political agenda by filing a frivolous lawsuit. The lawsuit was subsequently thrown out.

The Trump Organization was found guilty of criminal tax fraud and tax evasion and ordered to pay $1.6 million dollars. As hard as it is to believe, Trump still faces additional civil lawsuits which, if he losses, could result in paying millions more in fines (plus interest), not to mention the 91 felony charges and four criminal charges stemming from the January 6th protests which could also include possible prison time.

According to Forbes, Donald Trump has a net worth of about $2.6 billion dollars. He has $413 million in cash and liquid assets, which sounds like a lot to us mere morals. However, this may not be enough to pay the full amount of the judgments against along with interest. As a result, he may be forced to significantly reduce his holdings, including selling many of his famous properties such as Trump Towers or Mar-a-Largo.

Nevertheless, it would appear that when this is all said and done, "the Donald" may be a financially and psychologically broken man. There is no way anyone can endure what he has and not be mentally or physically affected. On top of all this, he is still running for president, which in itself, is a grueling and exhaustive experience.

It appears, at least to me, that the power-that-be, the ruling elite behind the neo-fascist corporatocracy that is America these days, are determined to both "punish "Trump as well as make him into a warning that while you can make all the promises you want  about reform while campaigning, there will be no challenge to the Status Quo. It exists as an unassailable force as much as any "mafia family" ever has.

If Trump is convicted on any one of the 91 felony charges, his presidential aspirations are over. The RNC National Committee will  assuredly select a properly vetted individual; someone who won't rock the boat.  Who that will be I don't know. I'll leave that to you to suggest, but I have a few ideas.

If Trump manages to survive and win the election, don't look for the same 2016 president. While he'll still be as bombastic as ever, Trump will be forced to follow the playbook dictated to him by the Status Quo or face more legislative roadblocks, continued ridicule and harassment by the media (which is devastating for people who have egos like Trump) and possibly even legal troubles. As former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, once said, "to get along you have to go along", meaning "the Donald" will have to play nice for the next four years if he wants to get anywhere. 

Of course, Trump has never been one to bow down to anyone.  A newly elected Trump could decide to go after the RNC, the mainstream media, and God knows who else. He could be a "man on a mission" intent on payback and putting America's house in order at any cost. 

As was said of Julius Caesar, "to save the Republic, it was necessary to destroy the Republic", but our Republic has already been destroyed. In its place is a barely veiled neo-fascist corporatocracy led by super rich oligarchs who make Trump look like a pauper (especially after all those fines and penalties are paid).

An ego bruised Trump may feel as if he has nothing to lose.  If that becomes the case, and given his army of devoted "Trumpsters", America could be in for a bumpy ride over the next four years. But then too, there aren't too many people who could blame him under the circumstances and no one is wanting four more years of Joe Biden. 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

HillaryClinton: How losing to Donald Trump changed her

Trump's 4 indictments in detail: A quick-look guide to charges, trial dates and key players for each case

TrumpInvestigations: Tracking the Cases

A Guide tothe Criminal Cases Against Donald Trump

 

Here Are AllThe Legal Bills Trump Has Faced Since Last Year---Surpassing $40 Million

Trump has become the last Republican standing in the 2024 primary. Here's how he bulldozed the field

The 1860Presidential Election

The Impeachment of Donald Trump

Have you ever heard of the "50 Year Scandal Cycle? It's one of those urban myths which say that about every 50 years or so, Washington undergoes some sort of major crisis or scandal. In the early 1870's, former Union General and U.S. President, Ulysses S. Grant, was duped into the national "gold conspiracy" by the robber barons Jay Gould and James Fisk, along with members of his administration which included the Credit Mobilier and Whiskey Ring scandals. It almost cost Grant the presidency.

In the early 1920's, President Warren G. Harding's administration was caught up in the Teapot Dome scandal. Fortunately for Harding, he died before being implicated. Then in the early 1970's we had President Richard Nixon and the Watergate break-in. The result was Nixon resigning in order to avoid being facing possible impeachment while other took the fall. The next big scandal, according to the myth should be around early 2020, and right on cue, we have the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Of course, as with most urban myths, they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. After all, if you go back 50 years before Grant we have President James Monroe. His administration was relatively uneventful except for the Panic of 1819 which was caused by poor banking practices and rampant land speculation. We also had the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This created a balance of sorts between the admission of free and slave-holding states which held until the late early 1860.

Coming forward, we had other major events such as the Great Depression in 1929, which, although brought about by the economic policies of President Coolidge, were largely blamed in on Herbert Hoover. We had World War I under Woodrow Wilson and World War II under Franklin D Roosevelt, not to mention Korean and Vietnam wars as well as other economic downturns and social changes.

So while you can make of it as you will, there's no doubt that we are facing another key juncture in our nation's history. As a country, America is more divided along more lines than at any other time since the Late Antebellum Period just preceding the advent of the Civil War. At the center is President Donald Trump who is seen by the conservative Right as the last major barrier to a "socialist" or "Communist" take over by the Left. Meanwhile the Left sees Trump and his supporters as akin to Fascists or Nazis with both sides accusing the other of as the death harbinger to our nation's democracy. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Never mind the fact that we're nowhere near the accepted definition of "socialism" let alone Communism, and neither are we even remotely close to being like Nazi Germany. However, the death knell of our democratic Republic has long ago sounded. We are, as everyone should know, an Oligarchy; a tightly woven neo-fascist corporate-government alliance replete with a corporate owned propaganda wing in the form of the media. It has produced an emerging surveillance/police state, created under the auspices of "national security" which provides adequate cover to all those seeking to curtail our natural and Constitutional rights, not to mention a perpetual "war on terrorism" to artificially stimulate the economy and to "bled off" a "surplus" population and all the while making obscene profits. It has redefined "freedom of speech" and personhood. It has co-opted both political parties which now serves its interests while leaving us with the illusion of choice. Suffice it to say that America in the Age of Trump is a badly broken country, but I digress.

So what are we to make of the impeachment of Trump? Is it, perhaps, payback by the Democrats for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? After all, he was originally brought up on four charges under the label of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Two were charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power relating to his affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Two of the charges were dropped, and Clinton was brought up one count each of obstruction of justice and perjury. While Clinton was charged in a bipartisan vote in the House, he was ultimately acquitted along a split vote in Senate.

In the case of Trump, the move to impeach was strictly along partisan lines, at least in the House where Democrats are in control (and there is a personal vendetta against Trump being played out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)). Nevertheless, when (and if) it goes to the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans and led by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it will die an ignominious death amid partisan cries of "shame!". I wouldn't be surprised to see it remain in the House where it would be a matter of record, to be used by Democratic candidates as a club to bludgeon their Republican rivals with (especially a candidate Trump or anyone seeking to use his coattails).

But what is this really about? Trump is accused of two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power stemming over his alleged attempts of using the promise of military aid and a White House meeting to get the President of the Ukraine, Volodymry Zelensky, to investigate a potential rival in the 2020 Presidential race, Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter, who has business dealings in the Ukraine.

These actually seem minor, especially when you look back at what transpired under the Obama Administration such as Benghazi, Fast and Furious, failure to reduce illegal immigration and DACA, failure to anticipate the 'Arab Spring' and the crisis in the Ukraine just to mention a few though I will add that him being "award" the Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing was a joke and greatly devalued the importance of the once prestigious award.

The Democrats (ie: Nancy Pelosi) claim that Trump's actions were tantamount to "high crimes and misdemeanors". They allege that President Trump was using his position "personal gain" when dealing President Zelensky which constituted abuse of power, and then by refusing to respond to repeated House inquiries had obstructed Congress. A "whistle-blower" report was filed by an unnamed intelligence officer who claimed that "he" had access to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky claimed that Trump was essentially trying to bribe the Ukrainian President.

However, both President Trump and President Zelensky both deny that anything of the sort happened. Besides, the military aid along with additional economic aid, were released as promised. If that was an attempt to bribe, it sure was a shoddy job. As for obstructing Congress, Trump maintains that he acted well within his presidential prerogative. Perhaps Nancy was miffed because she wasn't included in the discussions.

Additional investigation by the House via lopsided partisan hearings have produced a litany of partisan witnesses who appear to be testifying as much on heresy evidence than anything. Meanwhile, other witnesses, who may in fact be just as partisan, haven't been called despite requests by the Republican House members.

So, in the final analysis, what do we have here? Personally, I think we have the nation's divide on full display for not just the country to see, but for the whole world to witness. Secondly, we have the vitreous hatred of Pelosi for Donald Trump and all he stands for as a populist conservative on full view. She has gone out of her way from the day of Trump's election to impede and discredit Trump at every turn. Is it little wonder that she has led efforts to find a way to impeach Trump from the get-go? Of course, she's far from being the only one. Other Democrats have as well, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA). However, it has been Pelosi who has by far been the most determined.

In the end, this circus, which has cost taxpayers millions, will have accomplished little except to deepen the divide among Americans, but perhaps that's only a small bonus for the ruling Oligarchy which pulls the strings behind the curtains. Trump wasn't suppose to win. We was an outsider; a "sideshow" attraction as some of his fellow Republican candidates said of him in 2016. He wasn't one of the pre-vetted and pre-approved choices we were given. Besides, regardless of who the GOP nominee was, Hillary Clinton was the "chosen" candidate. She was supposed to receive her well deserved coronation, after which she could reward those who had supported and covered for her, not to mention use her position to bury once and for all her numerous sins of state.

But that didn't happen. Instead, a populist conservative with a reputation of being someone who spoke his mind and wouldn't be "managed" was elected. It meant that the Status Quo---the Oligarchy---had to place its plans on hold. There was even the danger that much of what they'd accomplished could be derailed or undone. It also meant that some may even be publicly exposed, which would violate a cardinal rule that was never to be violated.

I think that, in the end, this impeachment process has had but a single objective. That objective is to destroy President Trump's chances of being reelected. In short, it's nothing more than a desperate attempt at character assassination. A President hindered with the charge of impeachment, even if ultimately acquitted, could be viewed as someone who can't be trusted with power of the American Presidency. That would leave the American People with no other choice but to vote for the candidate the ruling Oligarchy has selected for us. Whether we chose to accept their selection remains to be seen.



Barack Obama Was a Foreign Policy Failure

Impeachment Inquiry Against Donald Trump

Trump impeachment inquiry: A simple guide


Top Democrats set to make Trump's life miserable in 2019

The Continuing Cry for More Gun Control

Following up on last week's article about the Parkland shooting and the new call for increased gun, I thought I'd like to comment just a bit on some of what President Trump has proposed in response. As many of you will recall, President Trump was inundated by the media with demands to immediately address the shootings and what he proposes to do about(more on that later).

First, Trump has already commented on the tragedy, and he promised to look into what options are on the table, short of the most hair brained one, which is trying to strip everyone of their guns, which we'll cover shortly. Secondly, if there was an easy solution, I'm sure Obama and other presidents whose administrations were scared by these senseless shootings would have already jumped on those. The fact of the matter is that there are no simple solutions. Lastly, I think the media, which has long ago established their strong anti-Trump bias, is trying to force Trump into a corner by getting him to say or commit to something which is unpractical or that he hasn't had time to seriously think through with the help of his various advisors. I'm sure no one expected Obama to have an instant answer so why so Trump?

The idea of raising the minimum age to buy a rifle from 18 to 21 years of age isn't a bad one. You have to be 21 to (legally) drink. In many places you have to be 21 to vote. However, one recent argument, namely that you don't have to be 21 to be drafted, is a bit out in right field. First, we don't have a draft and it's doubtful we ever will (though I wouldn't completely rule it out). Nevertheless, if one needs to register for the draft at 18, then one should be able to vote, drink, or buy a gun at 18. After all, if you're old enough to potentially be pressed into military service and possibly die for a war by a government that you didn't even get a voice in, then by God you should be able to cast a vote, buy a drink, and own a gun too!

On the other hand, if that's changed to 21, then all of it needs to be changed to 21. Otherwise, you are being put into a situation where you have no rights; no say in your future. I'd even be willing to go one step further by adding that if I can't vote, buy a drink or own a gun, then I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes on any income that I earn either. Isn't that the very definition of "taxation without representation"? I'm sure someone will argue that these should be a matter of State's choice, and I agree, but that should apply across the board. No vote, no gun, no right to legally buy alcohol, then no taxes either.

Next on the agenda is making it illegal to own "assault rifles". Since I'm not aware of any actual "assault" weapons available on the open market, I have to assume that opponents actually mean semiautomatic rifles with a military type design. Of course, there are dozens (if not more) rifles which look like ordinary hunting rifles which as semiautomatic, so should those be removed too? What about single shots? In the right (or wrong) hands, those can be every bit as lethal too. Should we extend this to pistols? After all, revolver or automatic can be just as deadly at the right distance.

Anti-gun advocates, I'm sure, would answer "yes" to most of these questions. They would attempt to remove all guns---rifles, pistols, air guns, BB guns, and I would doubt even dart, cap guns and even water pistols. Somehow they believe that if guns were suddenly made illegal, all the bad guys would throw up their hands, amid a muttered "ah shucks", and turn in their guns to. Well, I hate to burst their bubbles, but just like Prohibition, it ain't gonna work quite like they planned. Criminals will always have or have access to weapons, and I imagine there will be a hellva business coming from south of the border. Let's not forget that anyone with a machine shop can make a pretty effective gun too (remember the famous Sten gun from WWII? It was made entirely from plumbing parts and took just around five hours tops to build).

Part of the discussion surrounding the control of guns has been the elimination of kits that converted semiautomatics to near full automatics (including the "bumpstock"). I can see the need to remove these conversation kits from the general market; there is really no practical need for these to hunt or for self-protection, but then the 2nd Amendment wasn't written solely for hunting or even self-protection, or even for "killing" cans and bottles. It was for protecting the citizenry from the government.

While it's hard for many us to imagine, but our Founding Fathers had just concluded a revolution against their own government a few years before. They had fought the most advanced and highly trained army in the world at the time. They understood very clearly what it meant to be unarmed and defenseless or having the ability to defend yourself against your enemies. In fact, every one of those items listed in the Bill of Rights was there for a very real and practical reason. They had been there and experienced that first hand. They understood clearly what a government, unresponsive to its citizens, was not just capable of doing, but often quite willing to do. Not only had they seen and experienced it themselves, they saw it in France, the various German kingdoms, Spain, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and Russia.

Of course, weaponry has changed a thousand times over since 1776, but at least the weapons used by our Founding Fathers were near or on par with the British, Hessian, and French troops. Gun advocates press for the same or similar parity. However, it think there's something more basic at play here too. Anti-gun advocates and those who want to greatly curtail gun ownership seem to have a different view of government than those who oppose any sort of gun control. The former seem to be more trusting of government. They believe that government tends to have more of the answers than not; even if they didn't, government is still the best tool to find and implement the best answers. In short, government is the solution.

On the other side are those who resist the government. They see government as the problem and tend to believe that society is where we'll find the best solutions to any problems that we face, be it through capitalism or general consensus. They believe that, given human nature, power consumes all who come into contact with it. Thus, what the gun control argument is ultimately all about is how we feel about government; can we trust it or not? How long can we ride the beast before it devours us?

We've already seen out Constitutional or democratic republic devolve into an Oligarchy. That's a given now. We blew it while we were busy playing on our "Smart Phones", video games, and watching so-called "reality shows". We were too busy worrying whether or not our jobs were going to be shipped overseas, or pay cuts, or loss of benefits, to pay attention. Not surprising really. We're usually distracted by the corporate media while Washington is busy doing or hiding something else. So, why would you worry about losing the ability to protect yourself? It worked out fine for the Spanish, Italians, Russians, Germans in the 1920's and 1930's...right?

Now, as the other argument---allowing teachers to be armed in classrooms. In a word, "no". Personally I find that to be a really stupid idea. There are teachers who shouldn't be allowed to carry chalk let alone guns. First, in some schools, I'd be more concerned with the students trying to steal or disarm the teachers than some armed wacko walking into a school. Secondly, I don't think most teacher have the right mentality to use a gun. Yes, they are going to be far more concerned about the wellbeing of their students than some rent-a-cop, and yes, I think most teachers would do everything possible to protect their students up to and including putting themselves between the shooter and their kids.

However, it's an entirely different mentality between protecting others and to be will to shoot another human being (let along the psychological impact it would have on the younger students witnessing their teacher kill someone--although it might have a positive impact on any future discipline problems with older students). Still, it's not the teacher's job to shoot people.

At best, teachers should have access to stun guns or tear gas...again, at best. However, we already have "gun free zones" (Parkland High School was a "gun free zone" and we saw how well that sign worked). We have metal detectors. We have locked doors and security cameras. The fact is that there is nothing that can or will stop someone from doing it again, be it a school, concerts, hotel/casino, shopping mall, or an office building, if they are willing to be arrested or die. That's a lesson we should have already learned from the terrorists.

Having said that, I can see an argument whereby certain teachers---those with military or law enforcement training---coupled with specialized police "counter terror" training could be armed, perhaps with bean bags, rubber bullets, or other non-lethal means. Perhaps someone who doesn't have regular contact with students such as a gym coach, a vice principal, HR, or even secretary and would be able roam freely without drawing attention to themselves. I would also make the identity of that individual (or individuals) confidential so that no-one, especially the shooter, knows who is a possible threat or not. Declaring an area to be "gun free" is like putting a shark in the middle of a school of fish and posting a "no eating" sign.

Speaking of sharks, I want to add one last thing about the media frenzy going on around the Trump White House. While the corporate owned and controlled media likes to pretend they are the "conscience of America" and that "the public wants" or "the People need" to know is just so much BS. This is all about ratings, and ratings drive advertising which drives revenue. We are told what they want us to know; we are feed predigested news designed to make us form specific opinions while other stories are buried or ignored.

It's also all about one-upmanship between networks and individual reporters. Still, at the heart of it (at least this go around) is trying to destroy or discredit the Trump Administration. The political establishment---the Oligarchs who run this country---had promised Hillary that it was her turn after losing to Obama. Trump wasn't suppose to win. Heck, he wasn't even supposed to be in the race! He was, as Marco Rubio said, "the clown" and referred to Trump's campaign as a "freak show" (other candidates had more unflattering comments to make about Trump the Political Outsider). Trump was, after all, the unvetted and unpreapproved candidate who stole Hillary's crown. Apparently treason is where most American's draw the line.

What we're seeing daily from the media is a collective temper tantrum and their attempt at some sort of revenge for Hillary's loss as well as vindication for being so horribly wrong in not just their election prediction (which was embarrassing enough), but also despite their best efforts to manipulate the public's opinion of Trump. They were so sure they had the majority of us in their hip pocket.




CPRC: Another mass public shooting in Florida; another gun-free zone