Trump said to need R. & R. after 4 years of hard work. Let's all peel an onion.

Trump Jupiter Golf Club Loses Lawsuit, Must Pay Ex-Members $5M

 

 

“Michael Barnett, the chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, said he had fielded calls in recent days from reporters from as far away as Germany and Japan asking about Trump’s post-presidency plans and the local GOP’s political future.’I’m sure he’s going to want to take some time to relax and rest,’ Barnett said. ‘It’s been a long and tough four years, and he’s getting beaten up a lot. But all of us are sad to see the end of his presidency — or, some would say, his first term.'”   New York Times

“How many times has Trump played golf as President of the United States? Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2017, Mr. Trump has reportedly been on the grounds of his golf courses or played golf elsewhere 308 times since becoming President, and that’s as of Dec. 30, 2020.”  [golfnewsnet.com]

 

 

He’ll take some time relaxing,

Recuperating, resting.

Four years of work was taxing.

Of course, I’m only jesting.

Filed under: Citizen Trump

Comments

Leave a comment
  • You don't seem to appreciate how hard it must be spending your days from before dawn into the late night tweeting and watching Fox News. Then, to add to the stress, he had to be the star of all those rabble rousing rallies! Maybe we could all help him by sending him lists of good books he could read for enjoyment and enlightenment.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Yes, but would he read the lists?

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    Mary said he can't read.

  • In reply to jack:

    Hm, so she did. And as a professor of mine said (quoting Mark Twain, I think), "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    At the top of our lists would be picture books, of course. Dr. Seuss?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I don't think he can comprehend "I don't like green eggs and government cheese." Oh, that was Jesse Jackson.

  • He may need to come back to Washington before long -- to testify. Otherwise, you've got it.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    At this point, I'm not sure what's the point. The House said they had to get him out before his term ended, because he was a clear and present danger, but now he's gone and the Article won't be delivered until next Monday. Art. I sec. 3 may make it not moot, since a conviction may result in disqualification from future office, but I don't think they'll get 17 Republicans to vote for that.

  • In reply to jack:

    This may be new hair-splitting, but can he be a clear danger without being a present one? Is there a precedent about a clear and future danger?

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    A legal term, but usually used in the context of restraining First Amendment rights. An internet source. says:
    The framework and standard by which future criminal syndicalism claims would be judged was formulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919) which involved violations of the federal Espionage Act of 1917. The standard, known as the "clear and present danger" test, required deciding whether a person's words "create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

    I was relying on the proximity and degree distinction.
    However, it also noted that the First Amendment standard is now speech likely to incite imminent unlawful action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)). That would apply to the speech before the mob, but not to other things raised, such as setting off the nuclear codes or another act of sedition. Fortunately, he was convinced that it was over.

    I suppose one could argue how proximate the future is, but in this case it was more proximate than, say, Mary Trump publishing a book a month later.

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    Jack is correct in saying the "clear and present danger" test is used in First Amendment cases. But, in answer to your question, yes, there can be a clear and future danger. All criminal laws are passed to deter these. The prohibition on ex post facto laws prevents criminalizing past conduct, but laws are passed to punish future acts. I don't know that anyone ever uses the phrase, "clear and future danger" however.

    I think in the context of Trump's impeachment, the House felt a certain "clear and present danger" that if they didn't vote articles of impeachment while he was still in office, they would lose the chance to do so and to attempt to bar him from future office. They believe that trying him in the Senate after his term has expired is less of a Constitutional problem so long as he is impeached by the House earlier..

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I'm not sure of the latter, especially with the impeachment being conditioned on Pence not invoking the 25th Amendment in 24 hours, and Pelosi's talk with the military about the launch codes being secure.Impeachment on the bases you state only plays into Republican arguments that it was political and rushed.

  • I remember something about the Orange Candidate saying something about Obama shouldn't have spent a weekend golfing. As I said then, it was about a Black man golfing.

  • On the headline: At Tony's today, I took a leek (actually paid $1.49/lb for it)

  • In reply to jack:

    To your vegetable point, I remember many many years ago when I was at a garden center then near Midway Airport, a voice over the intercom announced that a lady has paid to take a leek.

Leave a comment