Saturday, July 13, 2019

Dotard tRump's Position On Trade (In Part) Won Him The Presidency. Why Sanders Or Warren Must Be The Democratic potus Nominee

For decades, the leaders of both parties preached the gospel that free trade was a rising tide that would lift all boats. Great rhetoric — except that the trade deals they negotiated mainly lifted the yachts — and threw millions of working Americans overboard to drown ~ Elizabeth Warren (Elizabeth Warren Goes After Free Trade Agreements in First Speech as 2020 Contender. 11/29/2018).

The following is excerpted from a 7/12/2019 conversation on the Thom Hartmann Program (a Progressive Political talk radio program that airs on Free Speech TV). Thom and Lori Wallach (the Executive Director Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch) discuss Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA (The USMCA) and where Congressional Democrats and the Democratic presidential candidates stand on the issue - the USMCA and the corporate benefiting "free trade" policies bought into by New Democrats Clinton and Obama.

Thom Hartmann: You and I agree that the neoliberal trade policies that really came in with the Reagan Administration in a big way - they negotiated NAFTA - George Herbert Walker Bush's Administration finalized those negotiations - this has always been republican trade policy. There has always been large chunks of the Democratic Party that have opposed this. In the modern era, it's the Sherrod Brown's... and yet, the guy who has successfully pushed back against it is Donald Trump.

It helped get him elected. Running on a Democratic position. Which is - yes, we need tariffs. Yes, we need protectionist policies. And yes, these so-called trade agreements actually suck. They're destroying American jobs. So, it puts us in this very awkward position of saying, thank God Trump is having a conversation about this. Because we've had two Democratic presidents (Clinton & Obama) who have been unwilling to. And a lot of Democratic members of Congress won't. Although some of them are out there screaming into the wind. From Bernie Sanders to Sherod Brown.

But, on the other hand, Trump is doing it completely wrong. He's demagoging this issue. So... how is the whole trade thing going? ... where are the Democrats on all this?

Lori Wallach: Obviously NAFTA has to be replaced. Almost a million jobs have been certified to the government to be lost to NAFTA. It's probably [more like] 4-5 million... Trump repeated what Democrats have said for a long time. Democrats in Congress tried to stop NAFTA. However, the deal Trump signed to replace NAFTA wouldn't stop the job outsourcing. Because the labor and environmental improvements and their enforcements are not strong enough. But he let Pharma put protections in there. So it [the USMCA] would raise medicine prices. It won't fix the existing problem, and it would lock in high prices here.

In that regard it's worse than the status quo. On the other hand he got rid of the outrageous corporate tribunals that have taken hundreds of millions of tax dollars, attacking environmental laws, etc. So, where are the Democrats? Miraculously, the Democrats are 100 percent united. Pelosi is being tough in saying to Trump - either you renegotiate your renegotiated agreement - fix the labor and environmental standards so it means something. To stop the outsourcing and to raise wages in Mexico so the draw of jobs [away from the US] is stopped. And you have to take out that Pharma garbage. Or no vote. And she's holding firm. Now the showdown is - what will the administration do?


Thom Hartmann: When Bill Clinton first embraced NAFTA in 1992, he was in the minority among Democrats. He was loudly attacked by a lot of Democrats. Many Democratic voters - apparently half of Ross Perot voters were actually Democrats - but, over time, the Democratic Party moved in that Direction. At least, much of it. ... These so-called free trade deals - managed trade deals for the benefit of corporations - have always been deeply embraced by Republicans [before and during the Trump administration - explaining why his only option is to go it alone and apply tariffs by executive fiat]. Where is the Democratic party as a whole - at the Federal level on this now? How does this break down in the House and Senate.

Lori Wallach: Right now, in respect to this NAFTA deal, the House Democrats are remarkably unified with the Speaker. Even the corporate Democrats - the New Democrats - the ones who have been for TPP - they say the environmental and labor standards need better enforcement and the Pharma crap has to come out. They sent a letter to the president that said - don't make the mistake of putting in this agreement... Congressional Democrats have always been better than the presidential wing [Clinton, Obama and many currently running to unseat Trump].

The candidates running for president have all signed a pledge that they would oppose any NAFTA renegotiation that included the Pharma goodies and didn't have strong labor and environmental standards in it. Including Beto O'Rourke and Joe Biden. But the truth is Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris - those guys are basically in the same place that Clinton and Obama were on trade. They're not good on trade.

You have Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Ryan [who] have been real champions on trade. ... If you have another Democrat, like Biden, who Trump can run against in Wisconsin and Michigan the way he did Clinton - "oh, you're for having more jobs outsourced. You're so sad TPP didn't pass"... We're going to lose again in those states. We have to have someone to the Left of him on trade. We have to have Sanders or Warren.

[End Thom Hartmann Program 7/12/2019 Excerpt]

Prior to New Democrats Clinton and Obama opposing free trade was the Democratic position. And on the side of the corporations (and against the workers) were the Republicans. That changed with Clinton. Then President Obama pushed the TPP and Hillary Clinton called it the "gold standard". Although she later (under pressure from Sanders) backtracked and vowed that, if elected, she would not sign the TPP. But many voters did not believe her. One reason was that her VP choice, Tim Kaine, also supported (then renounced) the TPP.

This (in part) explains tRump's win. Blue collar Democrats who voted for Obama decided to vote for tRump because of his views on trade. Many of them were for Bernie Sanders because of his opposition to job-killing free trade agreements. When Sanders didn't become the nominee they switched to Trump. A mistake because Trump does not know WTF he's doing. The United States needs a Trade Policy and NOT a president imposing tariffs by presidential fiat.

Me, I'd rather Bernie Sanders had been the nominee in 2016. It is my belief that he could have beat tRump. Because Blue collar Democrats who were swayed by the con man tRump would have voted for Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders would have had the Progressive caucus on his side and thus been able (or better positioned to) change US trade policy through Congress. tRump can't do this because Congressional republicans oppose protectionism and protecting American jobs from outsourcing.

This is why we must not nominate a Democrat with the wrong position on trade. The nominee must be either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Either of these two candidates would have the best chance of beating tRump in 2020. If the nominee isn't Sanders or Warren - tRump will quite likely "win" a second term (with, as before, help from Putin). Even though tRump's tariffs have not succeeded in their goal of bringing back American jobs. And his attempts to renegotiate our crappy trade deals have been a failure (and driven many soy bean farmers into bankruptcy).

Yet, despite going bankrupt, these farmers continue to support tRump (for some reason). I guess they think that some pain must be endured before tRump is eventually victorious. But that won't happen. Their Chinese customers have gone elsewhere to buy their soybeans, etc. These farmer are screwed. They just don't realize how screwed they are yet.

In any case, before the New Democrat movement, it was the Democratic Party that represented Blue Collar workers and opposed the so-called "free trade" deals that outsourced their jobs. Clinton and Obama betrayed them, costing the Democratic party (and the entire nation) dearly. Their betrayal allowed a con-man like Dotard tRump the opportunity to take up the anti-globalism, pro-American worker mantle (even though he lied and is actually 100 percent for the plutocrats).

Democrats need to reclaim by nominating Sanders (my first choice) or Warren. Either Sanders or Warren could get the job done and fix our broken trade policies, IMO. Unlike tRump, who lies, does a bad job, and failed to do what he promised. The only thing the Orange Turd has "achomlished" is to make things worse.

BTW, I'm starting to think Warren might be a better choice than Sanders. Due to the bad rap "socialism" has among low information voters. And, even though Warren's positions are very similar (where they are not identical) to those of Sanders, he calls himself a "socialist" while she does not. A fact that could make the difference. Given the fact that demonizing "socialism" is going to be a bigly tactic of the Orange Turd campaign in 2020.

Video: Lori Wallach Exposes How Trump Got Trade Wrong. Published 7/12/2019. 9:10.

SWTD #415

Thursday, July 04, 2019

tRump Administration Holding Kids In Concentration Camps Is Child Abuse!

Child abuse or child maltreatment is physical, sexual, and/or psychological maltreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or a caregiver. Child abuse may include any act or failure to act by a parent or a caregiver that results in actual or potential harm to a child... (Wikipedia).

The following is an excerpt from the 7/3/2019 airing of the Thom Hartmann Program. Thom and former Republican congressman Bob Ney (in his capacity as a correspondent for Talk Media News) discuss the tRump administration concentration camps that are holding (and abusing) Christian refugees from South of the border.

Thom Hartmann: Let's check in with Talk Media News ... on the line with us is Bob Ney, the author of Sideswiped, former congressman from Ohio. Bob, what's going on in the world?

Bob Ney: Good afternoon Thom. Well, we're looking at the federal judge who has blocked the Trump Administration policy denying bond hearings. That's the federal judge in Seattle.

Thom Hartmann: This is bond hearings for refugees on the southern border.

Bob Ney: Yes, sir. For the refugees on the southern border. He [the judge] blocked the policy. This came up because Attorney General William Barr, in April, issued that order, which would prevent immigration judges from granting bail to asylum seakers. And that was the vow by president Trump to end "catch and release". In the sense that they'd be released [into the United States] and later come back for their hearing.

Thom Hartmann: Right. And over 96 or 97 percent of these folks come back for their hearings. Which Trump and the Republicans were lying through their teeth about. Saying these people would just go away and never come back. And that's absolutely not true. They want to have their hearing. They believe they have a case.

Bob Ney: Yes. They do come back. Attorney General Barr (in April) issued this order because - you know how word gets back through communities - and, if people thought they'd have to sit in a detention camp for a year or two - then the Trump Administration hoped they wouldn't come in the first place.

That was the objective. The judge said this is unconstitutional. This will, most likely, continue to the Supreme Court.

Thom Hartmann: Does that mean that, in the meantime, refugees who are in these facilities can have bail posted for them and they can get out?

Bob Ney: They should be able to. Except the Trump Administration may file an emergency appeal. That I don't know. You asked the right question. The Attorney General can, however, make another rule. Not the same rule, but some other rule that they could devise to legally to [keep refugees in detention].

Thom Hartmann: In the meantime we're continuing to pay $750 prt child per day to private companies to keep child [and adult] refugees in, essentially, dog kennels.

Bob Ney: Exactly. Just because the Administration has lost temporarily doesn't mean it's over with. New rules can be put on immediately.

Thom Hartmann: And, if they deny them bail, then these for-profit corporations continue to get their $750 per person per day fee. So they've got to be lobbying the Trump Administration to say, don't give them bail. You guys keep paying us.

It's an abomination. This should not be happening in the United States of America.

Bob Ney: It is.

[End Thom Hartmann Program 7/3/2019 Excerpt]

So, here we have a former republican congressperson AGREEING that holding refugees (and their children) in concentration camps in deplorable conditions is "an abomination". An assessment that we should all agree with. All of us except hate-filled trumpers, of course. That the tRump administration is abusing children in an effort curtail illegal immigration should be a prosecutable crime, IMO.

For the record, I do not believe in "open borders". But these are people fleeing poverty, oppressive governments, crime and drought. They should be treated with compassion and not cruelty. But cruelty is the point. The administration thinks that by CREATING a crisis on the border they can blackmail the Democratically-controlled House into funding the Orange Turd's idiotic wall. It's despicable, but it's (at least partially) working.

I refer to the funding bill recently passed by the House. Money that the tRump administration most assuredly will NOT use to improve conditions in it's concentration camps. Because (like I said) cruelty is the point. And really, $750 per person per day isn't enough? Yikes! Yet trumpers defend this obvious corruption. As they defend ALL the tRump administration corruption. How ridiculous.

What follows is a 2nd excerpt from the 7/3/2019 airing of the THP in which Thom shares his thoughts on the tRump administration's treatment of refugee children.

Thom Hartmann: The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Doctor Sarah Goza - and what she had to say is just devastating. Quote, "when they opened the door, the first thing that hit us was a smell. It was the smell of sweat, urine and feces. And I heard crinkling to my left, and I looked over there and there was a sea of silver. There were young children in there. Unaccompanied boys. And they had no expressions on their faces. It was a room full of silent children. There was no laughing, there was no joking. There was no talking. All I could hear was the rustling of the silver Mylar blankets. ... the silence was hard to watch. Hard to see".

We have broken these children. The way you break a prisoner of war. Kids who don't laugh? Kids who don't talk?

Poltifact reports that "a 2000 U.S. government-commissioned study that found an 83 percent rate of compliance with court proceedings among asylum seekers who were found to have a credible fear in the expedited removal process. It also showed an 84 percent compliance rate among asylees under minimal supervision, and 78 percent among those who were unsupervised". A program under the Obama Administration program [ended by tRump], the Family Case Management Program, had 630 enrolled families and a "100 percent attendance record at court hearings".

SWTD #414

Monday, March 25, 2019

Yes, Dotard tRump And Vladimir Putin Colluded!

The iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to [Bill Barr] not as "Attorney General" but, instead, as "Coverup-General", noting that in another scandal—having to do with Bush selling weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein—Barr was already trying to cover up for both Bush, himself, and his friends ~ Quote excerpted from Thom Hartmann's 1/17/2019 article "William Barr's shady track record of covering up the crimes of a Republican president".

The following is an excerpt from the Monday (3/25/2019) airing of The Stephanie Miller Show in which host Stephanie Miller and Malcolm Nance (via phone) discuss the summary of Special Council Robert Mueller's report on the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections provided by AG William Barr.

Stephanie Miller: you tweeted this morning, "maybe I was wrong when I said "There is no way Barr will commit he greatest scandal in history to cover-up the greatest scandal in history". It looks like it just happened". Ah, nothing to see here, just a regular day in Washington. It is hard to get your head around him injecting himself like this. With his ridiculous 4 page book report.

Malcolm Nance: Now that I realize that he was the Attorney General during the Iran-Contra scandal, and he apparently did the exact same thing for Ronald Reagan... Now it doesn't surprise me anymore. But the thing that surprised me the most... is the question of conspiracy or collusion. I've said this about 20 times since yesterday - I've seen this with my own eyes.

Donald Trump stood on a stage and said "Russia, if you're listening, please release Hillary Clinton's emails". He called on a foreign power to work with [his campaign]. His son had a meeting where he agreed saying "I love it", and sat down with agents of the Russian government. That happened. Then the White House, one year later, formulated a cover-up letter, saying that this did not happen [the meeting was about Russian adoptions, not collusion]. There were over 100 contacts with 19 of his staff with Russian agents.

Someone who was on a radio program that I appeared on earlier this morning said, "...I think that the Mueller report will show that they didn't meet the complete perfect legal definition of conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not even a reasonable doubt. But I believe they were collusion-curious". Well, they were more than collusion-curious.

The only thing that was missing was where this investigation stopped. ...Roger Stone's [indictment] was the last one and the next one would logically be WikiLeaks and Julian Assange - the bridge to the Trump team. This investigation abruptly ended. So, I'm starting to believe that Bill Barr was brought in to put the knife into the investigation.

Stephanie Miller: Thank you! How do we know Bill Barr didn't stop this?

Malcolm Nance: [the end of the investigation could have come about if] ...Robert Mueller said, "we won't be able to get these guys beyond a reasonable doubt". In the US intelligence community, you are taken away, polygraphed, and you are brought up to consider if you should have criminal charges filed against you by the FBI - if you even cross one of the lines that these people crossed by the hundreds. So, explain to me, what was the legal standard for conspiracy. Because all the conspiracy I've seen with my own eyes - anybody else in the US government would be considered an agent of a foreign power at that point.

Stephanie Miller: Well, you tweeted, "this is absolutely impossible. Technically they ignored every contact between the campaign [and Russia] and couched conspiracy as only tacit or expressed agreement. In other words, no oral or signed FSB contract, no crime". That's a ridiculous standard.

Malcolm Nance: It's an impossible standard. Look, and I tweeted a little later, "here's trump's signed contract" - and I put up the BuzzFeed photograph of the signed letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow. That is your contract. Trump, from 2012 on, talked about Trump Tower Moscow with his Russian contact. Especially at Miss Universe. From 1987 on he has been trying to build Trump Tower [Moscow]. This is the only thing that explains his slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin.

...I've seen all the evidence over the last two years. Both from the Russia side - and I'm glad this report validates everything I've ever said about the Russian intelligence operation. That the United States was not openingly attacked. But you cannot tell me, that if this was the government of Iran and the Obama administration, and there were 100 secret meetings with them - trying to get them nuclear power plants [as Trump did re Saudi Arabia], that we would not be having treason trials right now. So, I'm sorry, that standard is going to have to apply to each side.

Stephanie Miller: Um, Malcolm, ...Joy Reid said to you yesterday, "sounds like the seeds of a cover-up" and you said, "Bill Barr is one guy. There are secretaries that have to handle these documents, the secretaries and FBI agents who did the work themselves". I sure hope there is some patriot out there [will leak the report if Barr suppresses it].

Malcolm Nance: This morning Donald Trump made it clear that he is now going to use the Justice Department and the Senate to start investigating everyone. ...they're talking about going after Hillary Clinton. Everyone who was in the FBI - Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, all the judges on the FISA court, and President Barack Obama. John Brennan. They're talking about literally attacking anyone who looked into Trump. This is the mafia tactic that they're going to use. They have now weaponized this. He is planning not to just get away with it, but to go to war with everyone who is opposed to him. The Democrats.


Stephanie Miller: OK... I want to get your take on something [from last week] [reading] ...Adam Schiff maintained that the counterintelligence investigation was far more urgent to national security concerns than the investigation into Trump's potential criminality. What Americans should be concerned about is whether the president's Russia policy is not dictated by our national interests, but is dictated by his desire to make 100s of millions of dollars in Moscow. He also noted the limits of indictments in revealing whether someone is compromised by a foreign power. In fact, most counterintelligence probes don't end with indictments because criminality is difficult to prove, and the information involved is often too sensitive to make public".

..."Schiff is concerned that the question of foreign influence on Trump through his finances may not have been fully explored by Mueller, if at all. From what we can see, publically or otherwise, it is very much an open question. ...he added, "the red line Trump drew at Mueller investigating his personal finances is not a line that can be observed and still protect the country".

Malcolm Nance: They've got to go through his finances. You don't know whether there actually has been a payoff. We don't know whether the Trump Tower meeting involved some exchange of cash. We do know that he did offer a bribe to Vladimir Putin of a 50 million dollar penthouse. ...Sara Sanders right now is saying that Robert Mueller has fully exonerated him. No he hasn't at all.

Stephanie Miller: ...[reading a tweet] because so many Americans have so many questions and we are entitled to answers - why did Paul manafort share highly confidential polling data with Russian intelligence? ...which states and Americans were targeted with that data...?

Malcolm Nance: What I want to know is why all these people in jail or will be going to jail - like Mike Flynn, lying about his Russian contacts? Papadopoulos, lying about his Russian contacts. Maria Butina is going to prison if she isn't exchanged in a spy swap. ...this is impossible [that there was not collusion]. I want to see all the FBI 302s, I want to see the intercepts. You're telling me that the Trump campaign contacts were all just coincidence? know what I say about coincidence - it takes a lot of planning.

SWTD #413

Saturday, March 09, 2019

Biased Judge Gives tRump Russia Colluder Manafort Light Sentence

Manafort's Judge, T.S. Ellis, Is a "Caesar" in His Own Rome ~ title of an 8.9/2018 NYT article by Emily Cochrane and Sharon LaFraniere.

tRump campaign chairman and Putin stooge Paul Manafort was sentenced yesterday to 4 years by Reagan-appointed Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis III. When the Mueller team recommended that he get at least 19 and a half to 24 years!

IMO this Legislative Branch appointee did not judge impartially based on the LAW but ruled that Manfort should receive far less time than Special Counsel Robert Mueller recommended based on his own biases.

As per Mr. Mueller, "Manafort acted for more than a decade as if he were above the law, and deprived the federal government and various financial institutions of millions of dollars". But according to Judge Ellis, Mueller lead an "otherwise blameless life". Huh?

"Dropping all the way from 19 years to four years is absurd", Barbara McQuade (a former United States attorney who teaches law at the University of Michigan) accurately observed (as per the NYT).

For the record, Manafort pled guilty to filing false tax returns (5 counts), failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts (1 count) and bank fraud (2 counts) (details here). It is possible that Manafort could still have up to 10 years added to his sentence.

Manafort will be sentenced next week in a DC court presided over by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, where he has pled guilty to an additional 7 charges in DC (he had the option of combining the charges into one trial in DC, but passed).

Note that none of the charges have anything to do with the collusion he participated in with Konstantin Kilimnik that involved Manafort handing over tRump campaign internal polling data. Data that allowed Russia to deploy microtargeting and swing the election to tRump [1].

As per a 10/1/2018 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer (How Russia Helped Swing The Election For Trump), "a meticulous analysis of online activity during the 2016 campaign makes a powerful case that targeted cyber attacks by hackers and trolls were decisive".

In other words, YES, there absolutely was collusion! My guess is that Mueller does not want to tip his hand yet. Not when he can nail Manafort for his many other crimes. Revealing the evidence of collusion NOW would probably get his investigation shut down ASAP. Instead the lying Orange Turd (and his defenders) can continue to claim that Manafort's crimes have nothing to do with Dotard tRump. BTW, when Dotard says that Judge Ellis declared that there was no Russian collusion, he lies.

Collusion is not a delusion, a hoax or a witch hunt. The tRump Tower meeting (attended by Manafort) and the Julian Assange/Roger Stone phone call Michael Cohen overheard (because it was on speaker/tRump was in the room) are 2 other notable acts of collusion we are aware of.

When the Mueller report comes out proof of many more will likely (IMO) be revealed. More (and concrete) evidence that the tRump campaign colluded with Russia (directly and via the Russian cut-out WikiLeaks) and Dotard tRump was aware (and approved) of what was going on.

What I think SHOULD happen then is that Dotard should be taken into custody and Hillary Clinton should be sworn in as the duly elected President. Unfortunately, since the Constitution has no provision for this situation, that is not possible. Even though Dotard should absolutely be indicted. The Justice Department may have a "policy" of not indicting a sitting president, but the Constitution does not forbid it.

Lawrence Tribe: To imply presidential immunity without simultaneously excluding... pre-inaugural crimes that were committed in order to become president would be manifestly unjust. It would create a perverse incentive structure, telling those seeking the presidency that the more successful they become in fraudulently obtaining and holding onto it, the less likely they would be to be held fully accountable for their perfidy. (Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President. Lawfare 12/20/2018).

Yet it seems that most professional political pontificators believe tRump will not be indicted because the DOJ says he can't be. Which is, as the article by Harvard Law School professor Larry Tribe points out, ridiculous.

As for Paul Manafort being sentenced to 4 years for a decade of criminal activity. Hopefully Judge Jackson will add another 10 years to his sentence. Which would put him away for 13 years (instead of the 29 he should be getting). Although the Orange Turd can still pardon his partner in collusion. Also, if Mueller does indict (unlikely), that case would go to the Supreme Court (where his ringer Blackout Brett would very likely rule in his favor).

Remember, however, that these are Federal crimes that Manafort (who lied when he said he'd cooperate with Mueller. But apparently Ellis does not care) has been convicted of. State crimes being charged are still very much a possibility (for which tRump could not pardon). So, despite the shameful biased ruling of Judge Ellis, Manafort will probably get at least 10 years... and possibly a lot more, God willing. And deservedly so.

[1] In regards to Manafort's 8/2/2016 meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik at the Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue... prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told judge Amy Berman Jackson that "This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel's office is investigating", suggesting that Mueller's office continues to examine a possible agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign (In Closed Hearing, a Clue About "the Heart" of Mueller's Russia Inquiry, NYT).

SWTD #412

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Predisent Dotard tRump's High Energy From Snorting Adderall

Remember how the dotard-in-chief kept referring to people (most notably Jeb Bush) as "low energy" during the 2016 primary? Also remember how the Orange Turd kept sniffing during the 3 debates (he lost) against HRC? Turns out there is an obvious explanation that we've all been ignoring.

A former staffer on The Apprentice and current stand-up comic named Noel Casler claims that Donald Trump was a "speed freak" who snorted crushed-up Adderall... (Former Apprentice Staffer Claims Trump Was "Speed Freak", Invited Teen Beauty Queens to His Suite by Tommy Christopher. 12/13/2018 Mediaite.

The following video is of Noel Casler (who worked on The Apprentice for 6 seasons) performing his material on 12/1/2018 at the Gotham Comedy Club in New York.

A speed freak is "an addict or habitual user of amphetamines, methamphetamines, or similar stimulating drugs". As per Mr. Casler, Donald tRump's stimulant of choice is Adderall, which he crushes up and snorts. This is where his high energy comes from.

This explains why Dotard sniffs during debates and speeches. says, "Adderall causes intense brain stimulation, leading to increased focus and alertness". That is why tRump abuses it. To compensate for his unfocused brain. You've heard the reports on how his aides keep the PDB brief and full of pictures, right?

The following 40 second video compiles every DJT sniff from the first presidential debate on 9/26/2016. As you can see, he sniffed a LOT.

The Washington Post reports that DJT receives oral briefings instead of the traditional printed PDB, because, as confirmed by Noel Casler, tRump can't read. Which isn't to say that he is illiterate, only that he reads at a low grade level. "tRump speaks at a 4th grade-level, lowest of last 15 presidents" Newsweek says. Additionally, the predisent's oral briefings are "augmented with photos, videos and graphics".

Also as per, another symptom of Adderall abuse is "prolonged periods without sleeping [and that] ...Eventually some begin to struggle with chronic insomnia". Dotard has said that he only needs 90 minutes to 4 hours of sleep per night.

Apparently "two percent of the population [have] a rare genetic mutation that allows [them] to get a perfect night's rest in nearly half the time". These superhumans, known as "efficient sleepers" are "upbeat, energetic, and healthy". Is tRump an efficient sleeper? Obviously tRump (and his dupes) will say YES. I say NO WAY. I believe Noel Casler tells the truth. Dotard tRump is a drug abuser, and THAT explains his ability to get by with little sleep. It is also the source of his supposed "high energy".

NYT columnist and author Timothy Egan contends that tRump "shows all the scary symptoms of sleep deprivation. His judgment is off, and almost always ill informed. He has trouble processing basic information. He imagines things. He shows a lack of concentration".

So, NOT a "efficient sleeper". Also very likely an Adderall abuser. All the circumstantial evidence points to the Orange Turd being a speed freak. Another reason to impeach. That is in addition to him being a traitor who colluded with Russia to steal the election.

SWTD #411