Biden Scolds Trump Over Military “Suckers” And “Losers” Remarks And Shakes Up The 2020 Presidential Race

Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden

Ever since he became President in 2016, Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted about the overwhelming support he has among military families, often claiming without evidence, that he has “rebuilt the military” which was dilapidated under his predecessor Obama. However events spurred by a recent bombshell report on The Atlantic have turned Trump’s military talking points upside down, and now appear to be a serious threat to his presidency, with less than two months to go before the 2020 elections. The bombshell report on The Atlantic gives a picture of Trump that stands in stark contrast to his public pronouncements of affection towards members of the military, and instead provides troubling examples of how Trump privately harbors deep disdain for them, even referring to dead and wounded soldiers with demeaning terms like “suckers” and “losers”

In a 2018 visit to Paris for example, Trump reportedly told members of his administration accompanying him on the trip that he did not want to visit Aisne-Marne American Cemetery saying, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” Trump on the same trip, also reportedly referred to the 1,800 U.S. Marines who laid down their lives for the country at the battle of Belleau Wood in France, as “suckers”. These are the kinds of disgusting remarks you simply never expect to hear from an American Commander-in-Chief regarding American troops–dead, wounded or alive. As expected, Trump’s disgusting “suckers” and “losers” remarks have created a political firestorm which seriously threatens his chances for reelection because his remarks credibly call into question his fitness to serve as the U.S. Commander-in-Chief. Trump’s remarks have also thrown his 2020 reelection campaign into a tailspin with top surrogates uncomfortably trying to reassure the public that he loves service members despite his remarks.

One such top surrogate is Trump’s former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, whose attempt to defend Trump’s “suckers” and “losers” remarks was met with severe backlash on Twitter. Haley had tweeted a rare request to Trump’s Democratic challenger Joe Biden, asking Biden to take down a campaign ad saying Trump was unfit to be Commander-in-Chief based on the piece in The Atlantic. Twitter clearly did not take lightly to Haley’s request.

But as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow correctly pointed out, Trump’s troubling behavior towards service members was evident way before the piece in The Atlantic came along. The bombshell piece in The Atlantic resonated with a lot of people because in many ways, it was simply a confirmation of Trump’s deep disdain for military service members, which many people had suspected all along. The 09/04/2020 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show took a deep dive into Trump’s troubling behavior towards service members and their families, the most notable one being his encounter with Myeshia Johnson, the wife of Sgt LaDavid Johnson, who was killed in Niger in late 2017.

The Maddow segment featured a clip from an October 2017 Good Morning America interview in which Myeshia Johnson lamented the cruel way President Trump had spoken to her on the phone regarding the death of her husband. Mrs Johnson said the phone conversation with Trump, which traditionally was meant to comfort/console military spouses who had lost loved ones, ended up being very traumatic, making her “cry even more” because Trump apparently said her dead husband “knew what he was signing up for.” Mrs Johnson was also distressed because Trump could not even remember her husband’s name, something she found very odd and annoying.

Maddow’s segment also delved into how Trump rudely dealt with Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, a wounded veteran who was a witness at Trump’s impeachment proceedings, especially the way Trump mocked his Army uniform and tweeted his rank in quotation marks, as if it was a fake title. Maddow also pointed out how Trump had derided Admiral Bill McRaven, a revered military figure most remembered for leading the attack that killed Osama bin Laden. Trump spoke disparagingly of Admiral McRaven saying he should have captured bin Laden sooner. There’s also the way Trump rudely dealt with Gold star father Khizr Khan who lost his son in combat in Iraq, and his infamous comments towards Senator McCain, suggesting that McCain was not a hero because he was captured. Simply put, even before the bombshell report on The Atlantic, there was already a mountain of evidence pointing towards the fact that Trump has very low regard for service members, especially the ones that end up wounded in combat, or dead.

It also bears pointing out that on a recent segment with Trump’s niece Mary L. Trump about her bestseller new book “Too Much And Never Enough”, Maddow brought up a section of the book which says Trump once threatened to cut his children off their inheritance if they ever enlisted in the military. The two also talked about Trump’s divorce papers with Marla Maples, Tiffany Trump’s mother. Apparently, there was a stipulation in the divorce papers that Trump would stop paying any further child support in the event Tiffany enrolled in the military. This is further damning evidence of Trump’s demonstrated disdain for the military and the people who enlist in the revered American institution as a sacrifice. It should be abundantly clear to everybody at this point that Trump’s only use for military service members, is as photo ops for his political campaign. He otherwise considers them “suckers” and “losers” for their sacrifice.

Bottom line folks, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden summed it all up with this powerful tweet, “Mr. President, if you don’t respect our troops, you can’t lead them.” Folks, if you don’t agree with Joe Biden on anything else, this should be your reason to vote for him on November 3, 2020. Our men and women in uniform deserve a Commander-in-Chief who gives a damn about them. Plain and simple!!.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Can A Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Be Indicted?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections heats up and more and more evidence continues to pop up indicating that then presidential candidate Trump was either fully aware of or an active participant in the interference, legal eagles are grappling with the question as to whether a sitting U.S. President can be indicted.

As it currently stands, according to many of the legal eagle pundits on cable TV, the answer to that question is no. There is apparently a Department of Justice(DOJ) policy that advises against indicting a sitting president. The pundits are quick to point out however that this is only a directive that can be changed at any time(not set in stone). Respected legal scholars like Harvard University’s Lawrence Tribe have argued against this DOJ directive saying nothing in the U.S. constitution prohibits a sitting president from being indicted if he is found to have committed crimes.

Strangely missing from the “to indict or not to indict” debate however is the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice can be indicted. We are of course talking about recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who as you will remember was the subject of numerous serious judicial complaints. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred the judicial complaints to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution.

A judicial council at the 10th Circuit Court recently dismissed all the complaints against Kavanaugh concluding that even though the allegations were serious, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because Kavanaugh was no longer a federal appeals judge and thus not subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that deals with disciplining federal district court judges, magistrates and circuit appellate justices. Essentially, because Kavanaugh had been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act no longer applied to him.

It is very important to point out that among the serious accusations against Kavanaugh was that he lied multiple times to congress while under oath. Lying to congress as you know is a serious felony, especially in Kavanaugh’s case given the fact that (1) he did that as a federal judge who should know better and (2) he lied to congress on multiple occasions.

An excerpt from 12/18/2018 USA Today article

The logical question then becomes if Kavanaugh can be proven to have lied to congress under oath, a felony, can he be indicted? Is it possible to indict a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice or are they for all intents and purposes, above the law? Is there any case law that precludes such an eventuality? All these are serious questions that one would think the mainstream media would have posed to the myriad TV legal eagle pundits by now. Instead as it has now become customary, it is left to Yours Truly to ask the serious questions the mainstream media won’t ask, for which the public is desperately seeking answers to.

Bottom line with all the attention focused on whether Trump can be indicted, it is about time the mainstream media also started asking the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in this case Kavanaugh, can be indicted.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. 

Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with C.J. John Roberts

In a rare public address Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the recent contentious Kavanaugh confirmation process and reiterated how important it is that the public views the High Court as independent. C.J. Roberts said regarding judicial independence, “Our role[Supreme Court] is very clear. We are to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them. That job obviously requires independence from the political branches.”

The problem with that is the person at the center of the public’s disaffection with the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also recently spoken about the Roberts Court. Sen McConnell and by extension his GOP’s view of the Roberts Supreme Court is in stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts says. Specifically, there is no question that according to Sen McConnell and his GOP, they have fought hard to pack the Roberts Supreme Court with conservative judges for the express purpose of getting favorable decisions from the court..

Sen McConnell recently said at a press conference following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If you want to have a long term impact, and obviously all of us would like to do that, the single most significant way to do it is judicial appointments and my party has not been in this position all that long. You can go back 100 years and only 20 of the last 100 years have Republicans had the Presidency, the House and Senate the same time, and so these opportunities have not come along that often for us and I do think it is the most consequential thing that I’ve been involved in in my time as leader.”

So what is a regular American looking at Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks about judicial independence and Senator McConnell’s partisan political remarks about judicial appointments supposed to think? Why would Sen McConnell and his GOP block President Obama’s rightful nominee Garland and then ram through Kavanaugh if the end result was to have an independent Supreme Court? Reasonable people would agree that if the Supreme Court was truly independent as Chief Justice Roberts argues, there would be more consensus in the senate confirmation process. In other words the fact that the senate confirmation fights have become so bitter is in itself proof of a partisan Roberts Supreme Court.


Bottom line as Yours Truly said in an earlier post, the Roberts Supreme Court has a serious credibility problem. It is sad to say it but most Americans are more inclined to believe Sen McConnell’s narrative over that of C.J. Roberts–that Republicans have made the Roberts Supreme Court a conservative court with the express intention of using the High Court to advance their Republican agenda–a partisan political court. Simply put, there is no way any reasonable person looking at the way Sen McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee Garland, rammed Kavanaugh through, and then gave a press conference bragging about his legacy of steering the court to the right, can ever conclude that the Roberts Supreme Court is somehow an independent court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out