This is so sodding... close. But no. Nobody will break cover. There is no smoking gun, no tapes. Even if there are, they'll be perfectly ambiguous.
A lot of people, many of them in the media, seem to have trouble grasping that things which are done openly can be illegal. I guess that's the legacy of decades of "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up". No, it's the crime, and the fact that the perpetrators are brazen enough to commit it openly doesn't somehow make it legal.
A video posted online in 2020 appears to show [ Trump campaign worker Thomas ] Lane handing out paperwork for electors at the Arizona Republican Party’s Dec. 14 alternate elector signing ceremony in Phoenix.
On another topic, the Committee seems ready to name names when it comes to fellow House members who asked for presidential pardons following January 6. In addition to the five mentioned in that article, testimony aired by the committee indicated Gym Jordan expressed an interest in the pardon question but the person testifying had no direct knowledge of Jordan actually requesting one for himself. Those with long enough memories might recall that Jordan was one of Kevin McCarthy's picks to serve on the Committee. Pelosi blocking him seems even wiser now.
There is a second clip from The Wire that is equally relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GC8fhtqOlz0
[shipmates wishing to avoid misogynistic overtones may wish to stop after the first minute]
This is so sodding... close. But no. Nobody will break cover. There is no smoking gun, no tapes. Even if there are, they'll be perfectly ambiguous.
A lot of people, many of them in the media, seem to have trouble grasping that things which are done openly can be illegal. I guess that's the legacy of decades of "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up". No, it's the crime, and the fact that the perpetrators are brazen enough to commit it openly doesn't somehow make it legal.
A video posted online in 2020 appears to show [ Trump campaign worker Thomas ] Lane handing out paperwork for electors at the Arizona Republican Party’s Dec. 14 alternate elector signing ceremony in Phoenix.
On another topic, the Committee seems ready to name names when it comes to fellow House members who asked for presidential pardons following January 6. In addition to the five mentioned in that article, testimony aired by the committee indicated Gym Jordan expressed an interest in the pardon question but the person testifying had no direct knowledge of Jordan actually requesting one for himself. Those with long enough memories might recall that Jordan was one of Kevin McCarthy's picks to serve on the Committee. Pelosi blocking him seems even wiser now.
Yeahhhhh. It's been 18 months. 30 to go. What are the odds?
The committee investigating the Capitol Hill insurrection on January 6, 2021, has added a previously unexpected public hearing for Tuesday afternoon, the committee announced Monday.
The panel has not revealed the hearing's topic.
The hearing will be at 1:00 pm EDT (5:00 pm UTC) tomorrow (28 June 2022).
Despite media accounts detailing this, the Committee's webpage has not been updated (as of this post) to include the newly announced hearing yet.
What was shocking in today's hearing was how out of control the former president. Throwing dishes of food in the White House. Attacking the secret service agent in charge of his protection unit. I would hate to see this violent toddler, prone to throwing tantrums, having access to the Football ever again.
What was shocking in today's hearing was how out of control the former president. Throwing dishes of food in the White House. Attacking the secret service agent in charge of his protection unit. I would hate to see this violent toddler, prone to throwing tantrums, having access to the Football ever again.
The one reassuring part was that both his aides and the agents ignored his orders to do something stupid and dangerous (both legally and physically so). I hope (pray) that in the event of Trump ordering a nuclear attack on Paris because Macron made fun of his hair that he would have a similar reception from those around him.
Depends on how many independents are paying attention to the hearings. That, and how many women will remember whose justices overturned Roe v Wade, That and when the DOJ will indict and convict Trump for conspiracy to incite a insurrection, intimidating election officials, and assaulting a federal law enforcement official
Depends on how many independents are paying attention to the hearings. That, and how many women will remember whose justices overturned Roe v Wade, That and when the DOJ will indict and convict Trump for conspiracy to incite a insurrection, intimidating election officials, and assaulting a federal law enforcement official
How can the DOJ convict any one? It . can . never , happen . Not in 29 months. Not ever. And neither will any (helpless, congenital, 80%) conservatives become liberals. As the Dakotas = New York & California in the gerrymandering by the filibuster guaranteed Constitution tyranny. The turkeys will vote even more for Christmas, proportionately due to voter suppression, i.e. Jim Crow. George Fukuyama was right for the wrong reason. History has ended. And not in liberal democracy.
Trump says the testimony is all lies. The faithful will believe him, backed up, no doubt, by Fox News.
Probably. But I did notice something in the grocery store a few days ago. The headline on one of the supermarket tabloids was:
“Trump’s INSANE CAPITOL HILL COUP!
Explosive TV hearings expose betrayal, LIES & treachery!
Secret ORDERS & neo-NAZI Deals!
RAGE over IVANKA’s testimony!
TERRIFIED he’ll go to PRISON!”
Now on one hand, one could reasonably assume they’re trying to help Trump, since it’s hard to imagine anyone takes rags like this seriously. (Though they are still in business, so clearly someone buys it.)
But on the other hand, while they regularly ran headlines like this about the Clintons (still do, in fact) and the Obamas, or the Reagans and the Bushes, it’s the first time I can remember seeing them run a headline like this about Trump. It did make me wonder.
But on the other hand, while they regularly ran headlines like this about the Clintons (still do, in fact) and the Obamas, or the Reagans and the Bushes, it’s the first time I can remember seeing them run a headline like this about Trump. It did make me wonder.
But on the other hand, while they regularly ran headlines like this about the Clintons (still do, in fact) and the Obamas, or the Reagans and the Bushes, it’s the first time I can remember seeing them run a headline like this about Trump. It did make me wonder.
Yeah. The headlines I saw were on Globe. I don’t know where it falls politically or pro-Trump-wise, other than I know they never seemed to miss a chance to tie the Clintons to murder and other crimes.
Of course, the DOJ cannot convict anyone, but they can bring charges before the court in quick order but I am not aware of any court case going for as long as two years,
I watched an interview with Rick Mulvaney who can be listed as a right of center Republican on the CBS Morning show today. When asked if he could vote for Trump, he hedged his answer (i,e, did not answer). The point is, if the hearings can cause a number of Republicans to hedge their answer to the question of whether they could vote for Trump, he will not win, let alone be the nominee of the Republican party.
But you said “. . . when the DOJ will indict and convict Trump . . . ,” so the response was simply to what you posted.
but they can bring charges before the court in quick order but I am not aware of any court case going for as long as two years,
A case going on for two years, particularly if you factor in appeals, isn’t at all unusual. And if USDOJ is going to indict, they’d be nuts to do it before they are positive that they have an absolutely watertight case.
This is the first time in U.S. history where we have a real chance of seeing a president ... well, put on trial like a common felon? perp walked, jailed, stripped of various normal rights like standing for election? Unprecedented, and that is doubtless a major factor the DoJ is weighing very carefully as they plan their moves. If they're going to go after the man (and I think they will), they'd better be damn sure they take him down. And they know that. Merrick Garland in particular has a history of building investigations of that sort, where you dare not get it wrong. And in those cases, you start at the bottom, you build carefully and in exhaustive detail, and you take your time. Which can easily be four years.
(I)n those cases, you start at the bottom, you build carefully and in exhaustive detail, and you take your time. Which can easily be four years.
At the risk of stealing someone else's line, will the Democrats be running the DoJ in four years - even four years from the date of the alleged offences?
(I)n those cases, you start at the bottom, you build carefully and in exhaustive detail, and you take your time. Which can easily be four years.
At the risk of stealing someone else's line, will the Democrats be running the DoJ in four years - even four years from the date of the alleged offences?
Actually, of course they'll be in office four years from the alleged offences. Sorry for muddled thinking.
But to try and be a little less clever with my wording, will the Democrats control the DoJ for long enough to get this to court - let alone through court?
Thanks @Nick Tamen. I just like the idea of election day, especially for head of state, or rather Her first lord of the treasury. It's as difficult as you make it it seems to me. It's not here. But then again we're not a federal republic.
For 15 years after I moved out of the UK, I was entitled to vote in UK elections. For several of those elections, I applied for a postal ballot.
In precisely none of those elections did I even receive the ballot paper far enough in advance of polling day to be able to mail it back in time. At least once, I didn't even receive the ballot paper until after polling day.
There are other options besides postal votes. When I was still eligible to vote in the UK, I used to appoint my mother as a proxy and never had any difficulties.
This does assume you have someone living in the right constituency whom you trust sufficiently to proxy for you.
There are other options besides postal votes. When I was still eligible to vote in the UK, I used to appoint my mother as a proxy and never had any difficulties.
This does assume you have someone living in the right constituency whom you trust sufficiently to proxy for you.
This is the first time in U.S. history where we have a real chance of seeing a president ... well, put on trial like a common felon? perp walked, jailed, stripped of various normal rights like standing for election?
It's actually the second time in U.S. history where there's a real chance of a former president facing criminal charges. The U.S. just took a cowardly pass the first time around.
Unprecedented, and that is doubtless a major factor the DoJ is weighing very carefully as they plan their moves. If they're going to go after the man (and I think they will), they'd better be damn sure they take him down. And they know that. Merrick Garland in particular has a history of building investigations of that sort, where you dare not get it wrong.
One of the difficulties is proving intent, particularly for political figures giving political speeches which are usually covered by the First Amendment. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony that Trump knew his mob of supporters were armed and he told them to march on Congress anyway goes a long way towards establishing criminal intent.
This is the first time in U.S. history where we have a real chance of seeing a president ... well, put on trial like a common felon? perp walked, jailed, stripped of various normal rights like standing for election? Unprecedented, and that is doubtless a major factor the DoJ is weighing very carefully as they plan their moves.
Thanks @Nick Tamen. I just like the idea of election day, especially for head of state, or rather Her first lord of the treasury. It's as difficult as you make it it seems to me. It's not here. But then again we're not a federal republic.
For 15 years after I moved out of the UK, I was entitled to vote in UK elections. For several of those elections, I applied for a postal ballot.
In precisely none of those elections did I even receive the ballot paper far enough in advance of polling day to be able to mail it back in time. At least once, I didn't even receive the ballot paper until after polling day.
Tell me again how it's not difficult.
That's difficulty by typically fookin British incompetence, not design.
(I)n those cases, you start at the bottom, you build carefully and in exhaustive detail, and you take your time. Which can easily be four years.
At the risk of stealing someone else's line, will the Democrats be running the DoJ in four years - even four years from the date of the alleged offences?
Actually, of course they'll be in office four years from the alleged offences. Sorry for muddled thinking.
But to try and be a little less clever with my wording, will the Democrats control the DoJ for long enough to get this to court - let alone through court?
As I understand it, DOJ is mostly career bureacrats. Tons of lawyers etc. who stay in position regardless of adminstration. The top positions in such places are sometimes replaceable by incoming admins (if they choose; often they don't) and are other times more or less tenured--have expectations of a certain term, I think it was 10 years for the FBI head?--though of course if the incoming president wants to get rid of you badly enough, he can trump up some bullshit way of getting rid of you.
But I'm hoping and praying that we DON'T get another extreme outlier like The Former Guy, who overturns norms as if they aren't even there. And I rather think that anybody attempting overt interference with the DOJ in the near future (please God, may that be at least several years) will be touching radioactive waste. Precisely because of the interference we've all become aware of.
This is the first time in U.S. history where we have a real chance of seeing a president ... well, put on trial like a common felon? perp walked, jailed, stripped of various normal rights like standing for election?
It's actually the second time in U.S. history where there's a real chance of a former president facing criminal charges. The U.S. just took a cowardly pass the first time around.
Unprecedented, and that is doubtless a major factor the DoJ is weighing very carefully as they plan their moves. If they're going to go after the man (and I think they will), they'd better be damn sure they take him down. And they know that. Merrick Garland in particular has a history of building investigations of that sort, where you dare not get it wrong.
One of the difficulties is proving intent, particularly for political figures giving political speeches which are usually covered by the First Amendment. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony that Trump knew his mob of supporters were armed and he told them to march on Congress anyway goes a long way towards establishing criminal intent.
Yes it does. Particularly with that preliminary bit where the hearing people stated that the Secret Service did not contest that he had in fact made those remarks about demanding to go to the Capitol etc. in basically the form she told them. She's looking like a very credible witness and I've not seen any opposition yet that takes the form of anything more than "x told y who told Z, an unnamed source, whom we are publishing in our rag today that it was not true"--none of it under oath, of course.
But you said “. . . when the DOJ will indict and convict Trump . . . ,” so the response was simply to what you posted.
but they can bring charges before the court in quick order but I am not aware of any court case going for as long as two years,
A case going on for two years, particularly if you factor in appeals, isn’t at all unusual. And if USDOJ is going to indict, they’d be nuts to do it before they are positive that they have an absolutely watertight case.
`
Nick are you splitting hairs? When I first said "when the DOJ indicts and convicts Trump" I thought it implied they would gain that conviction through the judicial process. When a prosecutor stands for reelection, he/she/they will list the convictions they had achieved to prove his/her/their worthiness, no? Two, we both know that the appeals process can take longer than two years, but first the DOJ has to achieve the conviction before the appeals process can proceed. I do not think it will take longer than two years to get that initial conviction. However, Trump has a way of tying up every court case against him until the case is dropped. For me, just the shadow of a formal indictment would be enough--yes, I know a person is presumed innocent until convicted. But I know other politicians running for office often do not get a nomination if they have an indictment to contend with.
But you said “. . . when the DOJ will indict and convict Trump . . . ,” so the response was simply to what you posted.
but they can bring charges before the court in quick order but I am not aware of any court case going for as long as two years,
A case going on for two years, particularly if you factor in appeals, isn’t at all unusual. And if USDOJ is going to indict, they’d be nuts to do it before they are positive that they have an absolutely watertight case.
`
Nick are you splitting hairs?
No, I’m not. I’m just pointing out why someone might respond to your post by saying USDOJ can’t convict.
The seventh installment of America's favorite televised non-fiction political thriller is set to return next Tuesday. The next public hearing of the January 6 Committee will be on July 12 at 10:00 am EDT (2:00 pm UTC).
Although not officially announced yet, apparently the January 6 Committee is planning a second public hearing next week on Thursday (July 14). This one will allegedly be during the evening, so expectations are high.
Today's public hearing of the January 6 Committee will start at 1:00 pm EDT (5:00 pm UTC). It will reportedly focus on the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, and other [ extremists / militias / paramilitaries / gangs ] involved in storming the Capitol. Those who are interested can watch the livestream here.
Thursday's (July 14) hearing has been postponed to another, as yet undetermined, day. That hearing was supposed to concentrate on Trump's own actions related to January 6.
Watched the hearing today. First hour was a review of testimony given before the committee via depositions, written material obtained through discovery, and subpoenaed information. The next hour had two witnesses: one who was the formal communications director of the Oath Keepers. The other was a regular blue color worker. I was taken by both, but the blue color worker illustrated how one can get taken up in pro-Trump social media that one can lose touch with reality. He now says he does not believe the election was stolen as much any more, but he had to get away from the Trump social media to see what really happened. As a consequence of going to the Capitol Riot, the man lost his job of 20 years and also lost his house.
After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President* Trump's call and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us, and this Committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice. Let me say one more time we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously.
For those who didn't click through to watch the video, that was Liz Cheney making her closing statement of yesterday's hearing. This, of course, set off all kind of speculation. Mark Meadows didn't try to personally contact Cassidy Hutchinson about her testimony, he left that to underlings. So who is this person Trump felt the need to personally lean on about their testimony? Even factoring in Trump's poor impulse control the fact that he felt this needed his personal attention seems significant.
Watching BBC24 Context just now, with the brilliant British educated Italian EU foreign policy adviser Nathalie Tocci & former Homeland chief Market Taylor. Talking about Jan. 6. They played a recording of a Twitter insider commenting on Trump inflaming the Brown Shirts (my expression, unlike the abandoned rat - which UK contributors knew wasn't me, I didn't know who it was when I posted it, wish I'd said that for non-UK contributors). This is horrifically dark politics, Sejanus in I Claudius came to mind, then Hitler proper of course. Trump, unlike Johnson, hasn't lost his constituency, the party high and low (unlike Nixon, Thatcher, and eve Sejanus). The Republicans are Renfield to his Dracula. And Biden is a disaster.
No matter how evil Trump is exposed as, it cannot touch his fascination. Like Dracula's.
The Trump family experienced a serious loss yesterday when Ivana Trump, the first wife of Donald Trump was found dead at the foot of some stairs in her apartment. Police believe she fell down the stairs accidentally. Ivana is the mother of Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric. Donald Trump released a statement that was actually coherent and praising her for raising his older children.
The story of the accident hits close to my wife and me. Several years ago we lost a fellow member of our congregation the same way. Our friend was going downstairs to do laundry in the basement when she fell and broke her neck.
Comments
A lot of people, many of them in the media, seem to have trouble grasping that things which are done openly can be illegal. I guess that's the legacy of decades of "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up". No, it's the crime, and the fact that the perpetrators are brazen enough to commit it openly doesn't somehow make it legal.
For example, from the Washington Post:
They had a "signing ceremony" for fake electors. And video taped it! And posted that video online!!! This is not a carefully kept code of omertà, these are not very bright guys and things got out of hand.
Stringer Bell wept!
On another topic, the Committee seems ready to name names when it comes to fellow House members who asked for presidential pardons following January 6. In addition to the five mentioned in that article, testimony aired by the committee indicated Gym Jordan expressed an interest in the pardon question but the person testifying had no direct knowledge of Jordan actually requesting one for himself. Those with long enough memories might recall that Jordan was one of Kevin McCarthy's picks to serve on the Committee. Pelosi blocking him seems even wiser now.
There is a second clip from The Wire that is equally relevant:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GC8fhtqOlz0
[shipmates wishing to avoid misogynistic overtones may wish to stop after the first minute]
Yeahhhhh. It's been 18 months. 30 to go. What are the odds?
The hearing will be at 1:00 pm EDT (5:00 pm UTC) tomorrow (28 June 2022).
Despite media accounts detailing this, the Committee's webpage has not been updated (as of this post) to include the newly announced hearing yet.
The one reassuring part was that both his aides and the agents ignored his orders to do something stupid and dangerous (both legally and physically so). I hope (pray) that in the event of Trump ordering a nuclear attack on Paris because Macron made fun of his hair that he would have a similar reception from those around him.
Depends on how many independents are paying attention to the hearings. That, and how many women will remember whose justices overturned Roe v Wade, That and when the DOJ will indict and convict Trump for conspiracy to incite a insurrection, intimidating election officials, and assaulting a federal law enforcement official
How can the DOJ convict any one? It . can . never , happen . Not in 29 months. Not ever. And neither will any (helpless, congenital, 80%) conservatives become liberals. As the Dakotas = New York & California in the gerrymandering by the filibuster guaranteed Constitution tyranny. The turkeys will vote even more for Christmas, proportionately due to voter suppression, i.e. Jim Crow. George Fukuyama was right for the wrong reason. History has ended. And not in liberal democracy.
“Trump’s INSANE CAPITOL HILL COUP!
Explosive TV hearings expose betrayal, LIES & treachery!
Secret ORDERS & neo-NAZI Deals!
RAGE over IVANKA’s testimony!
TERRIFIED he’ll go to PRISON!”
Now on one hand, one could reasonably assume they’re trying to help Trump, since it’s hard to imagine anyone takes rags like this seriously. (Though they are still in business, so clearly someone buys it.)
But on the other hand, while they regularly ran headlines like this about the Clintons (still do, in fact) and the Obamas, or the Reagans and the Bushes, it’s the first time I can remember seeing them run a headline like this about Trump. It did make me wonder.
I can't speak about the other tabloids, but the National Enquirer was very pro-Trump. When I say "pro-Trump" I mean they would "catch and kill" stories that could be politically damaging to Trump in a way the FEC would eventually find illegal.
I watched an interview with Rick Mulvaney who can be listed as a right of center Republican on the CBS Morning show today. When asked if he could vote for Trump, he hedged his answer (i,e, did not answer). The point is, if the hearings can cause a number of Republicans to hedge their answer to the question of whether they could vote for Trump, he will not win, let alone be the nominee of the Republican party.
A case going on for two years, particularly if you factor in appeals, isn’t at all unusual. And if USDOJ is going to indict, they’d be nuts to do it before they are positive that they have an absolutely watertight case.
At the risk of stealing someone else's line, will the Democrats be running the DoJ in four years - even four years from the date of the alleged offences?
Actually, of course they'll be in office four years from the alleged offences. Sorry for muddled thinking.
But to try and be a little less clever with my wording, will the Democrats control the DoJ for long enough to get this to court - let alone through court?
For 15 years after I moved out of the UK, I was entitled to vote in UK elections. For several of those elections, I applied for a postal ballot.
In precisely none of those elections did I even receive the ballot paper far enough in advance of polling day to be able to mail it back in time. At least once, I didn't even receive the ballot paper until after polling day.
Tell me again how it's not difficult.
This does assume you have someone living in the right constituency whom you trust sufficiently to proxy for you.
Well, quite.
And I didn't.
It's actually the second time in U.S. history where there's a real chance of a former president facing criminal charges. The U.S. just took a cowardly pass the first time around.
One of the difficulties is proving intent, particularly for political figures giving political speeches which are usually covered by the First Amendment. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony that Trump knew his mob of supporters were armed and he told them to march on Congress anyway goes a long way towards establishing criminal intent.
Closest I could think of was Aaron Burr as VP.
If we're including vice presidents, Spiro Agnew was convicted of felony tax evasion.
That's difficulty by typically fookin British incompetence, not design.
As I understand it, DOJ is mostly career bureacrats. Tons of lawyers etc. who stay in position regardless of adminstration. The top positions in such places are sometimes replaceable by incoming admins (if they choose; often they don't) and are other times more or less tenured--have expectations of a certain term, I think it was 10 years for the FBI head?--though of course if the incoming president wants to get rid of you badly enough, he can trump up some bullshit way of getting rid of you.
But I'm hoping and praying that we DON'T get another extreme outlier like The Former Guy, who overturns norms as if they aren't even there. And I rather think that anybody attempting overt interference with the DOJ in the near future (please God, may that be at least several years) will be touching radioactive waste. Precisely because of the interference we've all become aware of.
Yes it does. Particularly with that preliminary bit where the hearing people stated that the Secret Service did not contest that he had in fact made those remarks about demanding to go to the Capitol etc. in basically the form she told them. She's looking like a very credible witness and I've not seen any opposition yet that takes the form of anything more than "x told y who told Z, an unnamed source, whom we are publishing in our rag today that it was not true"--none of it under oath, of course.
Nick are you splitting hairs? When I first said "when the DOJ indicts and convicts Trump" I thought it implied they would gain that conviction through the judicial process. When a prosecutor stands for reelection, he/she/they will list the convictions they had achieved to prove his/her/their worthiness, no? Two, we both know that the appeals process can take longer than two years, but first the DOJ has to achieve the conviction before the appeals process can proceed. I do not think it will take longer than two years to get that initial conviction. However, Trump has a way of tying up every court case against him until the case is dropped. For me, just the shadow of a formal indictment would be enough--yes, I know a person is presumed innocent until convicted. But I know other politicians running for office often do not get a nomination if they have an indictment to contend with.
In other Committee news, former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone will be testifying to the Committee today in a closed session.
Unlike here where the sinking ship abandoned the rat.
That's by far your best post in years. I like it.
Martin is, in this case, reprising a remark from the leader of the opposition, who in turn seems to have cribbed it from twitter.
Aw, gee. You just had to ruin the moment, didn't ya.
Thanks - I'd not picked that up. I still like it.
"Reprise" is a kind word. My wife and I refer to leftovers as "Greatest Hits Remastered"
Thursday's (July 14) hearing has been postponed to another, as yet undetermined, day. That hearing was supposed to concentrate on Trump's own actions related to January 6.
For those who didn't click through to watch the video, that was Liz Cheney making her closing statement of yesterday's hearing. This, of course, set off all kind of speculation. Mark Meadows didn't try to personally contact Cassidy Hutchinson about her testimony, he left that to underlings. So who is this person Trump felt the need to personally lean on about their testimony? Even factoring in Trump's poor impulse control the fact that he felt this needed his personal attention seems significant.
He simply does not believe that rules or consequences apply to him.
In his defence (sic) the vast, vast majority of his life experience supports that belief.
If he had not been born into such extreme wealth of course, he would have ended up in prison or dead or both a long time ago.
AFZ
No matter how evil Trump is exposed as, it cannot touch his fascination. Like Dracula's.
The story of the accident hits close to my wife and me. Several years ago we lost a fellow member of our congregation the same way. Our friend was going downstairs to do laundry in the basement when she fell and broke her neck.