He guesses he studies history
Trump’s project for this morning: trash Jeff Sessions some more. Sessions richly deserves trashing, but not for the reasons Trump is doing it.
“I don’t have an attorney general. It’s very sad,” Trump said in an interview with Hill.TV, in which he also said the former senator from Alabama came off as “mixed up and confused” when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2017.
Not as mixed up and confused as Trump comes off every time he opens his mouth.
Trump doubled down on his criticism of Sessions as he left the White House on Wednesday morning for North Carolina to survey hurricane damage.
“I’m disappointed in the attorney general for many reasons, and you understand that,” he told reporters.
In the interview, Trump suggested he appointed Sessions out of blind loyalty.
Well, no; out of the belief in Sessions’s blind loyalty is more like it.
Trump said Sessions did “very poorly” during the confirmation process.
“I mean, he was mixed up and confused, and people that worked with him for, you know, a long time in the Senate were not nice to him, but he was giving very confusing answers,” Trump said. “Answers that should have been easily answered. And that was a rough time for him.”
This from probably the stupidest most confused most confused-answers-giving head of government on the planet.
In the interview, Trump questioned Sessions’s self-recusal, asserting that the FBI “reported shortly thereafter any reason for him to recuse himself.”
It was not immediately clear what he meant.
See? Confused, and not good at the talking thing.
Trump, as president, could fire Sessions at any time, but for more than a year, he has chosen instead merely to insult his attorney general.
Zing.
Trump did not offer a firm answer when asked about Sessions’s future by Hill.TV.
“We’ll see what happens,” he said. “A lot of people have asked me to do that. And I guess I study history, and I say I just want to leave things alone, but it was very unfair what he did.”
“We’ll see how it goes with Jeff,” Trump added. “I’m very disappointed in Jeff. Very disappointed.”
From the standpoint of water.
I guess I study history, too, and I have actually retained a bit of it, which is why I know that Trump does not, actually, study history. (Disclaimer: when I say I study history, I do not mean to claim I am a historian, only that I enjoy reading books about history, learning about history, and talking to my historian husband. I do not have any expertise above that of a lay person, and unlike Trump, am not going to claim any).
God knows why my mind works the way it does (and my apologies if you’re eating) but that quote is so much funnier if you imagine that Jeff is Trump’s pet-name for his penis.
Do you mind? Given the unfortunate publicity that Trump’s donger has had lately, imagine the effect of that comment on some innocent bystander who was both eating as he read it, and whose name was Jeff…!
;-( )
I thought we were done with presidential penises once Clinton left office, but no. We had to slime up everything again in the interest of male machinery. Color me one who does not want to hear one more word about penises as long as I live (except, of course, those words I must use in my Biology class when I teach about human reproduction. But that is generic, and those penises are not attached to anyone. Disembodied models I can deal with).
Omar, you’re right. I should have included a trigger warning for Jeffs. (-:
In that case, iknklast, you won’t want to read this Guardian piece by Hadley Freeman, in which she makes a very good case for laughing at Trump’s..erm….little Jeff.
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/sep/19/donald-trump-mushroom-acceptable-to-laugh
@#5: Indeed you should have. But Hadley Freeman finishes her linked article with the advice “Go get him, Stormy.”.
Which raises a point I have made elsewhere. Stormy Daniels is very well positioned to take out the Republican nomination, (or Democratic, or both) for the next presidential election, to become the first female President and only the second film-star president; though argument can be had as to whether Ronald Reagan should be disqualified on the grounds of the abysmal quality of his acting, when it is compared with that of the likes of Gary Cooper, Alan Ladd, James Stewart and even John Wayne.
Daniels would probably pick up the votes of all the Homer J Simpsons who voted for Trump last time, though I am not sure about the Marge Simpsons. And by throwing in the odd anecdotal recollection or revelation about Trump as she went along, she could sure keep her campaign on the front page and the top spot on the evening news: not to mention the potential feed for nightclub and TV comedians.
Daniels for President…!
Though I have no right to vote, I would still raise a glass of Jack to that.
;-)
Ugh, no thank you. Not her and not Avenatti either. We need to stop this “make random ‘celebrities’ president” thing.
OB:
Thanks to the way things have played out historically, the President of the United States is an elected 18th C monarch, albeit with power checks and balances. As the holder of the office is Head of State, and counterpart to the British monarch, he/she attracts a lot of media, paparazzi, and gossip columnist attention, and will inevitably be selected by their party on that basis and with that in mind.
I remember someone noting that photographers would be quite happy to elbow the Queen aside in order to get a better shot of Princess Diana, Heaven’s gift to the Royal Family.
So like it or not, the parties interested in having a POTUS will always have a soft spot for genuine and wannabee celebrities and vice versa.
(British and Commonwealth parliaments do not have the same problem in relation to PMs.)
Omar, Britain may not have the same problem, but there has been a very definite trend toward style over substance, particularly on the left.
Once Blair came along, suddenly image seemed more important than policy.Yes, he was as fake as a Chinese Rolex and always looked to me like a badly operated marionette voiced by Hugh Grant, but he was something new. He was young and ‘in touch’ with the people. He was Labour’s Princess Di, and old-fashioned politicians, the kind that focused on the job rather than photo shoots and rubbing shoulders with proper celebs.
When he went, the media had a field day contrasting him with his replacement (another Princess Di parallel. Look how they judged her replacement!) and the voters bought into it. They were turned off by the gruff, dour Scot, Gordon Brown. Who wanted a Prime Minister who looked like Bagpuss with a hangover. Never mind that he was an experienced parliamentarian and certainly the best Chancellor of the Exchequer that the country’s had in my lifetime at least, he had a weird smile and did a funny thing with his jaw when he spoke.
The more the press focused on his looks and demeanor, the less the public rated him as a politician. Labour became so style-obsessed that the bloody Milliband brothers, lacking in political experience but more Blair than Brown, were seen as the best two candidates filor leadership of the party. Forget all the experienced politicians who knew the game inside out, they were old and ugly and fat or had proper working-class accents, not at all New Labour.
So politics became less important than image.
The Tories didn’t really play the game with as much enthusiasm. Cameron was a Tory Blair, fair enough, and managed to make people forget that Tories were nasty for long enough to get them back into power, but that charade was soon dropped. Hard not to with Osbourne, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the rest carrying on business as usual.
The Lib-Dems had Clegg, who gets a ‘B’ for effort, and certainly looked the part; young, man of the people, photogenic. Everybkdy agreed with Nick. but Nick couldn’t master the art of not acting like a politician, openly sacrificing his and his party’s principles for the scraps from Cameron’s table. He betrayed the people who thought he was fashionable rather than political.
Our political leaders might not be celebrities-turned-politicos yet, more politicos-turned-celebrities, but we’re not a milliom miles behind America when it comes to seeing voting as a popularity contest just like X-Factor or Britain’s got (a dearth of real) talent, rather than a serious subject that affects the lives of us all.
You know it’s here to stay when even Corbyn is wearing a proper shirt….ironed, too.
I don’t think Canada is as immune either. I’m afraid Justin Trudeau got a lot farther on his looks than he deserved to. Speaking as someone who voted for his party as the best bet to defeat our local, incumbant Conservative, and partly on the (unfulfilled/broken) promise he made to scrap the “first past the post” system that has given the majority of seats in Parliament to parties that did not have a majority of the poular vote, I have been very disappointed in his performance.
Noted. And thanks.