Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 190: Slightly Erotic Politics

(+) Yeah! (+)

Palin as VP got him Republican support but lost him independents and independently minded Dems.

It probably didn't matter in the slightest though. That was a terrible time for Republicans due to the crashing economy and a huge downturn of support for Bush anything related to him. McCain, for as good a candidate as he was and as positive as he was viewed, did not stand a chance.

Obama was also incredibly popular, an incredible orator, and provided a sharp contrast to the previous 8 years. I honestly don't think any Republican candidate there does that much better than McCain.
---

pyresword posted...

if that were an accurate depiction of how the news media at large were reporting on events, then some level of outrage would be justified.

But it isn't.

I forget if I linked the statistics when I previously talked about it (more than once IIRC) but the mainstream media has had significantly more Republican representation over Democratic representation when it comes to quoting/commenting on stories.

I think the ratio was around 3:1.

MartinFF7 posted...

A setup designed for a photograph and endless media hitpieces revolving around it. Mission accomplished.

Are you implying the guy has mind control powers and could dictate Kavanaugh's reaction? Because I think that's a key detail he'd need for that theory to work out.

~~~

Re: Media

The issue, fundamentally, is a for-profit model IMO. It's more profitable for them to chase whatever clickbait-y headline they can find and rarely do a deep dive on it (not helped by the fact that the general public probably doesn't have the attention span for it.)

If you want a more controversial take, I don't think you can ignore that - at least wrt the subsection of the media covering the WH/politics, demographically they are (or at least seem to be, I'll admit I don't have STATS this time and am just anecdotally putting this together based on my experience) disproportionately white. I'd say that matters for a few reasons: First off, that group is going to tilt towards the right over the general public by itself. Second, it gives them a bit of a blind spot in terms of what they focus/prioritize on. Third, and this is the most speculative I admit, it could make them more sympathetic to the right because they probably know more people in it personally and would prefer to rationalize it rather than condemn.

Re: McCain's popularity with Democrats.

He's always been essentially #1 on the list of "Republicans that Democrats like." Certainly since 2000 and the Bush/McCain primary. Obviously it took a hit in 2008 with his selecting Palin (and actually being the one running against Obama wouldn't help in that moment.) I'd say it's a bit messier from that point on because rather than an aberration, McCain seemed to more fully run to the right from that point. I don't know if everyone else here forgot about his primary challenge for the Senate in 2014.

Obviously being attacked by Trump and most notably his dramatic thumbs-down to save the ACA boosted him again with Democrats but yeah.

I also think this whole narrative ignores most of the votes McCain actually took in favor of a curated selection of a few times he broke ranks. But hey.
---

Lol at the people going nuts about the Jewish Mexican woman signaling an esoteric white power sign behind The Hitman. The leftists found their pizzagate!
---

It's not a pizzagate until someone tries to shoot up a small business.
---

oh right

Re: Kavanaugh

Whole hearing is a farce. Republicans will all vote to confirm and that's a wrap. Democrats can't do anything to block or stall things. Even if they try to spend the hearing to "box him in" on presidential subpoenas or recusal regarding Trump or something it doesn't matter. What's going to happen if he lies? Impeachment? lol. (More likely he just dodges with "I can't comment on a hypothetical/without the specific details of the case/etc.)

Supposing he's hypothetically stalled past January (midterms is a bogus deadline here because Republicans would install him in the lame duck c'mon guys) Democrats probably plan to stall him through 2020/Mueller investigation. They've already made the arguments in favor of such: "An unindicted co-conspirator should not be allowed to appoint a judge to a lifetime SCOTUS position that could rule on the case."

As for the actual vote, I think it might just be party line. It's possible Manchin or a few of the other Red State Dems cross over seeing the inevitable and looking to protect themselves given their redder electorate but I'd actually lean towards them staying united.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The sad irony of Donald Trumps Supreme Court pick spending his opening remarks literally complimenting Merrick Garland as my superb Chief Justice.

You know, the guy Republicans stole a Supreme Court spot from?

---

I wonder what Dems would do if Trump nominated himself for the Supreme Court. There's no rule that he can't serve as president and justice simultaneously.
---

Yeah thats a reasonable thing to wonder.
---

So I'm reading a bunch of the quotes/stories from the Woodward book.

i am not sure how to describe my reaction

just... just... read it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodwards-new-book-reveals-a-nervous-breakdown-of-trumps-presidency/
2018/09/04/b27a389e-ac60-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html

Edit: (Also, I make it a point not to link to his twitter, but as you all knew deep down, there is - of course - a tweet from Trump appropriate for the situation. "Only the Obama WH can get away with attacking Bob Woodward.")

it really feels like a goddamn simulation. with all of these incidents triggering the Bloodborne "Insight gained" sound effect as we get closer to grasping the truth >_>
---

xp1337 posted...

Whole hearing is a farce. Republicans will all vote to confirm and that's a wrap.

He's such a great marathon runner and baseball coach!
---

MartinFF7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/rob_bennett/status/1037047732022730752?s=21

Trumps team will try to brush Kavanaughs diss of a Parkland Dad aside by saying security intervened.

But heres the video, and it offers an even more damning glance into the soul of a man very comfortable ignoring us commoners.

https://twitter.com/fred_guttenberg/status/1036600460726161408

A setup designed for a photograph and endless media hitpieces revolving around it. Mission accomplished.

Dude, the man introduces himself to tons of people, all who react like normal human beings with empathy. Kavanaugh being a piece of shit scumbag is all on him.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/us-en/322642/im-female-banker-male-colleagues-making-infertile

This article is satire, right

I mean, first thing I notice is I don't know WTF that website is, so I'm immediately skeptical about it being a serious article.

I do know my sister had trouble getting pregnant when she was working, but then got pregnant immediately when she and her husband went on a cruise, so yeah, stress, work, and exhaustion are not good for getting pregnant. So that part at least is somewhat factual. (Although it only reduces the odds of pregnancy).

And like...it's fine to fight for better working conditions (not 80 hour work weeks, reasonable amounts of vacation time). The title is pretty clickbaity, though.
---

Yeah, I'm not really sure how it was a setup. The guy does the exact same thing (introduce himself) to everybody he can, on both sides. It's not like he had control over how Kavanaugh reacted.

Pretty poor take.
---

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1037178780983414785?s=21

Trump just claimed he's never insulted anyone as "r*******." He's done it at least twice *on the radio*

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html

"I don't know why they don't take care of a situation like that, I think it's embarrassing for the country to allow protestors."

"In the old days, we used to throw them out."

cool, cool

just the president of the united states casually suggesting suppressing protest and free speech
---

I know I'm alone on an island here but I feel like I really need to argue these points. Even if it comes across like an Ulti's-friend-style FB post.

CelesMyUserName posted...

Dude, the man introduces himself to tons of people, all who react like normal human beings with empathy. Kavanaugh being a piece of shit scumbag is all on him.

Well when I introduce myself to someone it's usually at an appropriate place and time - I'm not racing up to somebody after their very stressful, and constantly interrupted, confirmation hearing as they're walking out of a room. Maybe in the hallway afterwards? Yeah, but then the cameras might not catch it. Regarding Kavanaugh's reaction, I can see where it came from - I'll address that later in the post.

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, I'm not really sure how it was a setup. The guy does the exact same thing (introduce himself) to everybody he can, on both sides. It's not like he had control over how Kavanaugh reacted.

Pretty poor take.

The "setup" isn't Kavanaugh's reaction, it's that Guttenberg wanted to make a scene. He literally tweeted as much beforehand, how he wanted to be part of Kavanaugh not being nominated. His only purpose in "trying to shake his hand" was for it to occur in front of the cameras and make Kavanaugh look bad, whether he shook his hand or not.

As far as Kavanaugh goes, I can put myself into his shoes, easily. As heartless and unempathetic as it appears - and this is assuming he heard Guttenberg and it registered what he was saying, in the literal 2 seconds this unfolded in - confirmation hearings are highly scrutinized and everything needs to be tightly controlled for appearances, just like a politician running for office. He probably realized in those two seconds that shaking his hand and engaging with him would be, strategically, a terrible move. It's not worth it, in that situation, to put yourself in a public encounter outside your control.

Let's play this out: Kavanaugh does turn around and shakes his hand. Immediately, Guttenberg gives a planned speech about his lost daughter, school shootings, gun violence and the need for gun control, and maybe even disparages Kavanaugh to his face about his prior rulings relating to gun rights. I didn't see Guttenberg's multiple CNN and MSNBC appearances tonight but I'm sure he covered this territory there.

Ah, but no matter what Guttenberg says, now you're committed to this conversation: you can't walk away mid-speech from a bereaved father pouring his heart out without looking infinitely more heartless. If Guttenberg asks him questions, Kavanaugh can't answer them. You're stuck there. It's brutal. Everything's on camera for posterity. The video of Guttenberg's speech alone would be replayed a million times. Everyone in this topic would be cheering how Kavanaugh - our Trump proxy for the week - was put in his place.

And all of this is WITHOUT him knowing that Guttenberg has made explicitly clear tweets stating his intention to torpedo Kavanaugh's confirmation. Which is why nominees in situations like these tend to be insulated, again like politicians, from any outside or unnecessary contact which can hurt them.

So I can admit it makes Kavanaugh look bad, but I can see where it's coming from - I just hope everyone else can see how Guttenberg's "handshake" motives are clearly not pure and he shouldn't be treated that way. He knew, whether Kavanaugh shook his hand or not, he'd get what he wanted. Like a Xanatos Gambit, I guess...

Kavanaugh's mistake was turning around the first time instead of just walking out.

If you don't want to be a face of the Trump administration then dont be associated with them. Youre going to be a fucking Supreme Coirt Justice, don't act like you don't give a shit.

Also, you act like Kavanaugh is an unknown entity heading into this.

He's not. Its possible to know you don't like Kavanaugh on the basis his public positions on the issues.
---

MartinFF7 posted...

Let's play this out: Kavanaugh does turn around and shakes his hand. Immediately, Guttenberg gives a planned speech about his lost daughter, school shootings, gun violence and the need for gun control, and maybe even disparages Kavanaugh to his face about his prior rulings relating to gun rights.

I mean yeah, it would be awkward. Hell, even outside of the political context, a man walking up and saying his daughter is dead is awkward, and I would probably feel uncomfortable in that conversation.

But I wouldn't refuse to touch him and ignore him. That just seems stone cold heartless to me.

And I can see what you're saying about maybe it's a slick political calculation (to limit soundbytes or whatever). But this does kind of confirm an impression I have of Kavanaugh--that he's basically a politician. Which...at least to me is not a positive quality in a judge.
---

MartinFF7 posted...

I'm not racing up to somebody after their very stressful, and constantly interrupted, confirmation hearing as they're walking out of a room.

Oh no a man up for Supreme Court Justice was stressed and rattled and reacted in a dumb manner oh noooo poor him

I mean, if somebody can't remain composed through something like that, maybe they shouldn't be up for such an important, very stressful position

As for the rest "Oh no he'd be stuck there for a speech," all he had to do is shake his hand and then leave. It literally looks a billion times better if he just shakes the guy's hand, even if he immediately leaves right after. You act like that's asking the guy to perform a miracle and oh no it doesn't conform to the fake performance he's currently putting on nooooo
---

MartinFF7 posted...

I just hope everyone else can see how Guttenberg's "handshake" motives are clearly not pure and he shouldn't be treated that way.

What, exactly, constitutes "pure" motives here?

His child was killed and it directly ties into (in his mind at least) a political issue. SCOTUS nominations are inherently political.

You're also assuming quite a bit about Guttenberg's intentions here in a way to favor your position while giving Kavanaugh spin in the same way. Yes, Guttenberg tweets earlier that he hopes to "play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice" but immediately parlay that into him having sinister/malevolent motivation in the handshake itself.

Let's assume something close to the scenario you spun and say he anticipated a response of some kind. Like Kavanaugh shaking his hand back and saying "Sorry for your loss" and then following up with, "Well why have you ruled X, Y, and Z on gun control?"

Contrary to what you seem to be saying, I think if Kavanaugh disengages at this point - preferably by saying - "I can't address that in this setting, I'm sorry" or something he comes off looking fine in terms of the optics of it. Guttenberg still "gets what he wants" in your words because if he chooses to he has given spotlight to an issue in which his position is overwhelmingly supported by the public, but that his position is massively favored is true regardless of what happens here, it isn't dependent on Kavanaugh's reaction. He is doing nothing more than being an advocate for an issue he has an obvious deep belief for. It "works" for him/"isn't good for" Kavanaugh because he's on the side of a vast majority of the American public on this. You're assuming we're all going to be sitting here going "yeaaaaaa boy got 'em" when I think most of us (or at least half) would recognize that Kavanaugh honestly isn't in a position where he can field those questions. I'd argue that the committee can't quite ask them in the way Guttenberg can so I'd understand his motivation in asking what they can't but that doesn't mean Kavanaugh is compelled to answer him.

I'd contend it's far more likely that his motives are pure - that he's advocating for an issue he deeply cares about because it relates to the loss of a child - to one of the very few people in the entire nation who conceivably would have the power to do something about it.

That he is likely aware that Kavanaugh is going to look bad for being on the other side of the issue doesn't change that or "pollute" his motives. It really only works out this way because gun control is a massively unbalanced issue politically where the vast majority of the public is "on his side" already whereas it is not at all reflected in the political class, with which Kavanaugh is aligned.
---

xp1337 posted...

Even if they try to spend the hearing to "box him in" on presidential subpoenas or recusal regarding Trump or something it doesn't matter. What's going to happen if he lies? Impeachment? lol. (More likely he just dodges with "I can't comment on a hypothetical/without the specific details of the case/etc.)

called it

(it wasn't a hard call)
---

...This Woodward book is sure going to be something.

More excerpts that weren't in the WaPo article I posted yesterday:

https://www.axios.com/bob-woodward-fear-book-excerpts-donald-trump-9f7fa27f-7c8b-4f28-bcc1-99fcb22be315.html

Trump to Clapper (DNI) wrt the Intelligence Community's findings on election interference: "I don't believe in human sources ... These are people who have sold their souls and sold out their country ... I don't trust human intelligence and these spies."

Trump to Bossert (adviser for homeland security, cyber security, and counterterrorism) when he asked if he had a minute: "I want to watch the Masters. ... You and your cyber ... are going to get me in a war - with all your cyber shit."

More excerpts in the link and I still feel like the WaPo excerpts were somehow crazier.
---

"Several times Cohn just asked the president, 'Why do you have these views [on trade]?' 'I just do,' Trump replied. 'I've had these views for 30 years.' 'That doesn't mean they're right,' Cohn said. 'I had the view for 15 years I could play professional football. It doesn't mean I was right.'"

lol
---

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1037359643734028301?s=21

Check out Alex Jones vs Marco Rubio in a congressional hallway

Its basically Ulti vs this topic, as much as I hate to compare us to Rubio
---

I find this Nike stuff amusing.
---

Did your dad burn his Nikes?
---

More Kavanaugh stuff:

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1037359348882833408

Kavanaugh may have committed some light perjury. (The thread notes that in his opinion it hasn't been conclusively proven yet but that this would be the end of any other nomination/confirmation even to this extent.)

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1037339038561325056

Also apparently Woodward's book also notes that Kavanaugh had recommended that Porter be selected for his WH job as Staff Secretary (You will recall that Porter was later fired - after an agonizing amount of time trying to defend it - for domestic violence)

It's almost like nominees are supposed to go through a thorough vetting process and that withholding tons of documents is a bad idea.
---

xp1337 posted...

MartinFF7 posted...

I just hope everyone else can see how Guttenberg's "handshake" motives are clearly not pure and he shouldn't be treated that way.

You're also assuming quite a bit about Guttenberg's intentions here in a way to favor your position while giving Kavanaugh spin in the same way. Yes, Guttenberg tweets earlier that he hopes to "play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice" but immediately parlay that into him having sinister/malevolent motivation in the handshake itself.

I've said my piece and I understand I can't change people's minds, but if we could at least be intellectually honest on this point I'd appreciate it.

If I say I'm going to this place to mess this guy up, and I go to that place, and I rush to encounter the guy I said I wanted to mess up - I'll take a man at his word. That's what I meant by it not being "pure".

If he tweeted something like, "I will be at Kavanaugh hearings and I hope to have a conversation with him about the need for gun control", that's a pure motive. When you tweet "I will be at Kavanaugh hearings and I hope to play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice.", I mean, it's just so nakedly transparent. Surely you can see the handshake is not in good faith.

It's like you said earlier - it's part of the farce, the pageantry of this whole affair. Senators trying to delay the hearings when we all know there's 0% chance they vote for him no matter what "papers" they read, and he'll go through on a straight party vote. It's just an opportunity for Harris and Booker to shore up their bonafides for their 2020 runs.

Trying to stop Kavanaugh is definitely a pure motive.

Pure good, specifically.
---

^ lol

And when I say lol, I mean I did literally chuckle out loud at that. So I guess.... col?

If we're seeing this now, just imagine if RBG passes and Amy Barrett is nominated to replace her. Hoo boy...

You take it for granted that these things have to be straight party votes. The fact that they can be now is probably the single most damaging thing that has happened to our Republic under Trump.

6/8 Supreme Court Justices got like 90 votes to confirm.

Just the latest 3 nominees have been wrung in past political showdowns.

Just the last 1 failed to clear 60 votes.

Filling the court with fringe voices left and right can only do harm to the institution.

That said even if you're right and this is a master political mind who despite never running for public office somehow boxed in a man who has been running to be Supreme Court Justice for 3 years it still brings something true to the conversation - Kavanaugh opposes gun control and the vast majority of the country does not.
---

I just don't see the point in painting Kavanaugh like this poor victim

"Well, he was stressed and suddenly faced with a tough issue"

is possibly the worst excuse I've ever seen given the position he's going for
---

MartinFF7 posted...

I've said my piece and I understand I can't change people's minds, but if we could at least be intellectually honest on this point I'd appreciate it.

You're declaring your view to be true by fiat. I provided an alternate explanation that I said I believed to be plausible and I felt my argument was well reasoned. And you're just ignoring it.

MartinFF7 posted...

If he tweeted something like, "I will be at Kavanaugh hearings and I hope to have a conversation with him about the need for gun control", that's a pure motive. When you tweet "I will be at Kavanaugh hearings and I hope to play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice.", I mean, it's just so nakedly transparent. Surely you can see the handshake is not in good faith.

Again, to take a page from your playbook about assuming the reactions people would have - if he tweeted your alternative I think we would all know how he would expect that to go. I don't think there's any real substantive difference between those two phrasings. Yours just gives semantic cover for "civility."

He opposes Kavanaugh. It is almost certainly (I say this because I haven't read any interviews he's done on the subject) because of gun control. The latter drives the former. I believe his beliefs on gun control are likely to be genuine. So his opposition to Kavanaugh is genuine and good faith IMO.

Yes, he wasn't there to just say hi. That doesn't mean he's somehow not "pure" in his motives. It's not really much different than a form of protest IMO. To get a bit overdramatic here he's essentially bringing his grievances/desire for redress to Kavanaugh.

If you want a counter-example hypothetical where I think this confrontation could be made under dishonest motivation it would be if Kavanaugh actually supported Guttenburg's positions on gun control but Guttenburg opposed him for other reasons and was somehow trying to leverage his status on that issue to impugn him. Which is not at all what happened.

Opposition is not impure. You don't have to sit there, smile, and keep quiet to be "pure."

MartinFF7 posted...

It's like you said earlier - it's part of the farce, the pageantry of this whole affair. Senators trying to delay the hearings when we all know there's 0% chance they vote for him no matter what "papers" they read, and he'll go through on a straight party vote. It's just an opportunity for Harris and Booker to shore up their bonafides for their 2020 runs.

lmao

Now that's quite a take on what I said.
---

Eddv posted...

You take it for granted that these things have to be straight party votes. The fact that they can be now is probably the single most damaging thing that has happened to our Republic under Trump.

This started before Trump.

Garland is when we crossed the Rubicon. Sure, electing Trump was when we reached the other shore - to continue the metaphor - since it meant the tactic both succeeded and was not repudiated politically.

But yes, these don't have to be straight party votes. Hardiman would have gotten D crossover votes, I have no doubt.
---

This made me laugh:

https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/1037378830346985473
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1037171035152506880?s=21

Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake NBC News said its time for the Press to stop complaining and to start fighting back. Actually Chuck, theyve been doing that from the day I announced for President. Theyve gone all out, and I WON, and now theyre going CRAZY!

Back to using an anti-Semitic label on a Jewish person again after hes definitely been informed that its anti-Semitic
---

Thank you for the responses xp1337. I think we're getting mixed up on how we were defining "pure motive" - I probably should have said "innocent". I'm not doubting Guttenberg's sincerity, he believes what he believes in and will fight for that cause, his motives are "pure" in that sense, for sure. But I also think there's a difference between a dialogue in good faith and trying to generate a "gotcha" moment for cameras. As an act of protest, I can appreciate it.

I was just really struggling, because I was picturing a scenario where a guy says "I'm going to shoot this man", and then he takes out a gun and points it at the guy, and everyone else is saying "well we don't know he would've shot him, he might have intended to do x y or z" - that's what was driving me bonkers.

We can simultaneously believe Kavanaugh is a scumbag for refusing the handshake, while also understanding that Guttenberg is a man with a stated purpose and who was trying to achieve that purpose. That's all.

Now I'll resume steering clear of the politics containment topic...

Obellisk posted...

"Several times Cohn just asked the president, 'Why do you have these views [on trade]?' 'I just do,' Trump replied. 'I've had these views for 30 years.' 'That doesn't mean they're right,' Cohn said. 'I had the view for 15 years I could play professional football. It doesn't mean I was right.'"

lol

The WaPo excerpts from the book about Cohn are so crazy it's hard to believe they're true.

literally saving trade deals by stealing documents off trump's desk
---

MartinFF7 posted...

We can simultaneously believe Kavanaugh is a scumbag for refusing the handshake, while also understanding that Guttenberg is a man with a stated purpose and who was trying to achieve that purpose. That's all.

Well, yeah. Guttenberg had a purpose.

It's just that Kavanaugh screwed up that meeting in a way that while it still benefited Guttenberg's purpose, was done so in a way I don't think he anticipated. And even if he somehow did foresee it going down that way, I still think it says more about Kavanaugh.

Again, I think the ideal way Kavanaugh could have handled that was to shake his hand, give his condolences, and move on. If Guttenberg persisted, apologize and give a line about how he can't address his questions in this setting or something. Yes, there would still be some who would attack him over the issue and "evading/ignoring" but procedurally that would have been a sound course to take and while I think it'd be fair to use the incident as a springboard to discuss Kavanaugh's positions on the issue (what I suspect Guttenberg intended) I'd think it'd probably be unfair to attack Kavanaugh for specifically bailing on the conversation in that specific instance. Instead we got... what we got. It was an unforced error and reflects poorly on him (IMO) and it's fair to call him out for it.

Think you're right about us defining "pure" differently here though.
---

Literally all Kavanaugh had to do to not look like a soulless prick is smile, shake the dude's hand, say "sorry for your loss," and walk away. He couldn't be bothered to even do that, which says an awful lot about him.
---

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Anyone want to bet who wrote this? My money's on Sessions.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Anyone want to bet who wrote this? My money's on Sessions.

I bet it was trump
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Anyone want to bet who wrote this? My money's on Sessions.

It's gotta be Mattis right?

I'd be shocked if it were Sessions, personally.

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Anyone want to bet who wrote this? My money's on Sessions.

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/1037431261810307072?s=21
---

I hope it was Melania <_<

But it's an encouraging message regardless
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037464177269514240

TREASON!
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1037464177269514240?s=21

TREASON?

What a tweet
---

Get fuckt bruv
---

Id like to think he meant that as a DM question to one of his buddies asking if hes up for some treason tonight
---