Sunday, June 25, 2017

Local Boy Makes Good

When 'Better Dead then Red" makes sense to Libs


"Clearly, though, these Democrats have never heard of a certain Rodney Stooksbury. (They are not alone in this.) One good reason why Tom Price beat his last opponent by 23 points was that his last opponent was functionally indistinguishable from a corpse or a bag of lettuce.

Stooksbury spent precisely $0 on his campaign and has never been seen in public. Jon Ossoff had the entire national Democratic Party pulling out the stops for him, and flooded Atlanta television with ten million dollars in advertising. Drastically improving on the Stooksbury numbers should be no dazzling feat. (Although, somewhat hilariously, Stooksbury actually got more total votes than Ossoff, 124,917 to Ossoff’s 124,893. Granted, special elections have lower turnout, but good grief.)"

Classic Reagan

Friday, June 23, 2017

But .. why wasn't the server turned over?



What I See

(Via Daily Mail) Former FBI director James Comey made a quiet visit to The New York Times on Thursday, one of few public outings since he admitted leaking stories to the newspaper about President Trump before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8.

That's What I Saw
Leaker Comey kept his sunglasses on and his gaze forward as he marched through the front entrance of the Times Square office building which houses the publication shortly after 6pm. He was accompanied by his wife Patrice Failor who also wore sunglasses. (read more with additional pictures)



This may be the least covered major story of the Trump era, so far at least.

While the media and Democrats are obsessed with increasingly bizarre Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, and failed attempts to flip Special Election congressional seats, an enormous change to the federal judiciary is well underway.

I was on the Trump bandwagon from day one; for 3 reasons.
  1. He wasn't a politician
  2. He had the resources to fight what we now call "the Deep State."
  3. And, most importantly, he could stop the federal courts from turning us into a unicameral dictatorship.
I am well pleased

Pork News

PETA's silence in the face of undeniable evidence of horrific cruelty toward cats and dogs by Muslims is cowardly, hypocritical, and in itself cruel. By remaining quiet about such torture they are in effect sanctioning it

“I’ve seen cats being played football [soccer] with. I have seen cats with their legs torn off and their eyes gouged out. We see cats that have had their heads torn off, and ones that had skin ripped away, or had their legs and back broken. ...The worst thing I saw was a bunch of kittens crawling around with their bowels hanging out because they had their bellies cut open.”
The above is the testimonial of a Danish Animal Protection worker, as translated by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels. But don’t expect the wider Left to get on the case anytime soon. Not only are the atrocities being committed abroad, in the suburb of Vollsmose in Denmark, but the perpetrators are from a “protected” group: Muslims.  —Selwyn Duke “Kittens’ Guts Ripped Out: Heinous Cruelty to Animals in Muslim ‘No-go Zone’”
The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel.Proverbs 12:10 (NIV)
Warning: The following link contains extremely graphic photographs of European Muslim cruelty to cats—including cat crucifixions mocking Jesus. Gloating sadism on parade.

Pass  me some dat pink brisket, please.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Your Program



Finally .. some common ground



Res Ipsa Loquitur        



cinema à la carte                                 

The official trailer for the Swedish adaptation of A MAN CALLED OVE, the internationally bestselling novel by Fredrik Backman.
MoSup recognized this title (A MAN CALLED OVE) as we skimmed Netflix last night.  She normally dislikes subtitled movies because she can't work her puzzles.  I know. I went along.  This is the best movie I've seen so far this year.  Maybe ever (I loves my hyperboles).  Really. And you will too if you throw out all your misconceptions about what's good and isn't, and heed my advice for a change.  Dammit!


Wednesday, June 21, 2017


Get yourself a good defense lawyer

This, by my count, one of 14 things the DP have ruined

Potatoes: Your friend

I forget who


cinema à la carte                                 

The kerfluffle over "the bloody killing of Donald Trump in Shakespearean play" – days after comedian’s ‘beheaded president’  reminded me of a 2006 video I did  in response to Roger Ebert's review of  a leftist film "Death of a President."
 When I finally found it on my YouTube channel, I discovered it was no longer  exportable, have received a bullshit "Thumbs Down"  kill by a Googletarian which puts a fine point on it's recent declaration: "Technology
Google promises YouTube crackdown on online extremism.
  We know what that means, don't we boys and girls? 

Rope Store Stock Surges


Part 1 of the series, which was released yesterday, showed evidence of dirty tricks including what is known as "birddogging", or infiltrating Trump campaign events in order to incite anarchy and violence. The video also showed potentially illegal coordination between a network of shady consulting firms, SuperPACs, and the Clinton Campaign itself.

Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the video, at least one democratic operative, Scott Foval, has been fired as a result of its release.

Project Veritas describes the video:

Several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Scott Foval, the National Field Director for Americans United for Change, saying, “we’ve been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin’ assholes [Republicans] for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it.”

One of the highest-level operatives for the DNC who admits to being “no white knight” said that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.

Foval then goes on to explain the sinister plot and how they avoid getting caught. The undercover reporter asks why they can’t just “bus in” voters, but get them to use their own personal vehicles. Foval describes how they avoid being detected and free of criminal charges. “Would they charge each individual of voter fraud? Or are they going to go after the facilitator for conspiracy, which they could prove? It’s one thing if all these people drive up in their personal cars. If there’s a bus involved? That changes the dynamic.”

How do they keep it a secret from the American people and the FEC? Foval explains, “So you use shells. Use shell companies.”

The final straw is Foval and the Democrats don’t think journalists, the media or the law can do anything to stop him, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. “The question is, whether when you get caught by a reporter, does that matter? Because does it turn into an investigation or not? In this case, this state, the answer is no, because they don’t have any power to do anything.”

Foval thinks we don’t have the power to stop him and the shady and corrupt tactics of the Democrats to rig this election.

Part 1 of the series, which was released yesterday, showed evidence of dirty tricks including what is known as "birddogging", or infiltrating Trump campaign events in order to incite anarchy and violence. The video also showed potentially illegal coordination between a network of shady consulting firms, SuperPACs, and the Clinton Campaign itself.

Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the video, at least one democratic operative, Scott Foval, has been fired as a result of its release.

The videos  beg the question:  "Did Obama Win the 2008 Election?"  A question asked November 5, 2008 by anyone with an ounce critical thinking abilty.  [Full Hannity]

Oh; There's This Too: Ariz. Sen. John McCain's Foundation Funded by Anti-American Leftist Billionaire George Soros

Oiling the Tree of Liberty Here Boss


Trump Can Get Unmasking Records Out of Obama Library

It appears, then, that Rep. Devin Nunes’ House Intelligence Committee subpoenas to the NSA, CIA, and FBI will come up fruitless, with the Deep State agencies deferring to the Obama Library. But don’t worry.

The NSC stated in its letter that “Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library.  You may send your request to the Obama Library.  However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.”

First of all, Barack Obama’s presidential library does not actually exist. The proposed library in Jackson Park, Chicago, will not be fully constructed until 2021. So where are the records? Physically speaking, where are the records? Are the records at the construction site? What constitutes the Obama Library, as an entity, at this point in time?

What purpose do these records serve in an Obama library? Will the museum feature a “Surveilling Trump” exhibit next to one about Obama’s boyhood years in Hawaii? Will “Susan Rice’s Unmasking” play as an in-house movie for library guests? By 2021, the left’s partisan hatred might be formidable enough to make this a reality.

The federal government still owns the records, not the museum, according to the National Archives website: “The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”

The national Archivist has custody of the records, according to the Archives site: “Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.”

Since the NSC cited the five-year confidentiality window, that means the only thing specifically hiding the records is the Presidential Records Act, which has certain exceptions.

Darmaris Dunham
From what I read below a special prosecutor or DOJ (Sessions) can ask for them per Supreme Court cases
Are the records closed to the public? Yes. But not closed to the current president, Congress, or law enforcement officials who can get the information and make it public themselves.

From the Archives website:

Ҥ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access

(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available–

(A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;

(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available; and

(C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available; and”

There are a number of ways the Trump administration can choose to get at the records. Importantly, the House Intelligence Committee subpoenas should still bear fruit. Devin Nunes might just have to add the Obama Library and the national Archivist to the subpoena list. [IBD]


This Just In

CNN Alter Ego

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Click Click

'It doesn't seem reparable. It doesn't seem like it is possible'
In yet another case of Republicans catching blame for the shooting attack, Limbaugh pointed to the case of PBS panelist Mark Shields saying the shooting was a result of Newt Gingrich’s 1990s rhetoric.

But First

The above video, of Bernie doing an "in your face"180º flip of Pelosi's "We have to pass it to know what's in it"  says it all for me. A testement that his movementarians have no boundaries.  That The Bernies are secure in their estimation that followers will only read or listen to party doctrine, and wouldn't know truth if it bit them in the ass.  Which is surely will.  It's almost a joke; except it's not.

Now, on Friday I had something in the Stack here that I didn’t get to, and it was a point that I was gonna make. Since this happened, you know, you have a bunch of different people opining. And there are many people who have sprung up in an attempt to be bipartisan and say, “Bernie Sanders is not responsible for this. Don’t go there. We can’t say that Bernie Sanders is responsible. Bernie Sanders didn’t pull the trigger.” I understand that. But, folks, my point with this is not that Bernie Sanders is responsible in the sense that he pulled the trigger.

But if you read what this guy has posted on Facebook, if you read his letters to the editor, Hodgkinson, if you listen to sound bites, this guy’s rhetoric, the things that he says are amazingly parallel to what Bernie Sanders has said during his campaign and since. My point is that this guy, Hodgkinson and probably countless others, they are not creating this rhetoric themselves. They’re copycats. They’re copying what they’re hearing and seeing in the media and from their elected candidates.


Can you imagine this? If somebody from some conservative organization were caught running around town with a list of names after having shot a Democrat member of Congress, had a list of names of other Democrats, can you imagine?
So the argument is out, “We can’t say that the words of others inspire action. We don’t want to go there.” Of course not, ’cause that would then make Hollywood really in a precarious circumstance. But my point is that we pull up short of the guy pulling the trigger. It can’t be denied that Democrat rhetoric is in fact creating mentally unstable people out there on their side. These are true believers, and they’re subject to it, they soak it up. They seek it out wherever they can find it. When they end up speaking publicly, they regurgitate whatever they’ve heard from their favorite comedians or their favorite politicians or their favorite media pundits.

It’s amazing how close it is. It’s almost like plagiarism. So it’s undeniable that there is impact. When the effort to enrage people and make them upset — by the way, I said last week, the New York Times raked me over the coals in the Sunday magazine for this. But you can find tweets from Democrats, elected Democrats, who reference exactly the kind of thing that Hodgkinson did. You can find elected Democrats who have tweeted out, “Republicans should be lined up and shot.” No less than Tim Kaine has said something like that.

I don’t care what they want to try to pin on, for example, Sarah Palin, that never happened. If that happens on the right, if somebody on the right had ever said somebody needs to be stood up and shot, can you imagine what the left would do with this? Can you imagine this? If somebody from some conservative organization were caught running around town with a list of names after having shot a Democrat member of Congress, had a list of names of other Democrats, can you imagine?

That news wouldn’t be buried underneath some terror attack in London. It would be all that we are hearing about. I have to laugh when I listen to these leftists try to blame Newt Gingrich for this. Mark Shields on The NewsHour on Friday afternoon, that session he does with David Brooks, blaming this on Newt Gingrich, blaming this atmosphere on Newt Gingrich, as though the incivility only began when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

So the bottom line, it is clear that we have a divide, a major divide in America that does not seem surmountable. It does not seem reparable. It does not seem like it is possible or even likely to find any common ground, when many Americans think that their number one enemy is the other political party, which is a fact on the left. Scary times.

And this impeachment talk and all of this investigation of Trump, it’s all part of that mix. I understand the administration’s afraid to use the word. They don’t go to out and start talking impeachment, even blowing it away and nuking it, defending it, because then you get the word out there. But I don’t think they need to be afraid of it. There’s nothing that Trump has done or even dreamed of doing that’s impeachable. All of this is manufactured. And it needs to be beaten back. But the Republicans so far seem to be standing by idly.

Bernie Sanders is for all practical ....  a communist  threat of  Vladimir Lenin proportion.  

Sunday, June 18, 2017


Seth Rich Murder Witness

Who's on First?

JFC Chris!  Are you daft?
WALLACE: You — you just, sir, that he’s being —

SEKULOW: No, he’s not being investigated!

WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I said that the — any — let me be crystal clear so you — you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any investigation of the president of the United States, period.

WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he’s being investigated.

On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace had a heated exchange with Jay Sekulow, who is member of President Donald Trump’s legal team.

Partial transcript as follows:
WALLACE: I want to ask you a direct question, does the president think that Rod Rosenstein has done anything wrong?

SEKULOW: The president has never said anything about Rod Rosenstein doing anything wrong. Here’s what — what is the legal situation here. There is a constitutional issue when you have this scenario. The president made a determination based on consult of advice. He decided ultimately. He’s the commander in chief. He gets to make that decision that James Comey had a go. That was coming, by the way, from groups right, left, and center over the last year. You — you and I know that. So there had been concern about James Comey.

It was put forward in a memorandum — that’s what the president’s referencing — from the deputy attorney general and the attorney general requesting the removal of James Comey as the FBI director. And, ultimately, that’s the president’s determination.

So here’s the constitutional threshold question, Chris. The president takes action based on numerous events, including recommendations from his attorney general and the deputy attorney general’s office. He takes the action that they also, by the way, recommended. And now he’s being investigated by the Department of Justice because the special counsel under the special counsel relations reports still to the Department of Justice. Not an independent counsel. So he’s being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. So that’s the constitutional threshold question here. That’s why, as I said, no investigation —

WALLACE: Well, I — what — what — what’s the question (INAUDIBLE). I mean you — you stated — you stated some facts. First of all, you’ve now said that he is getting investigated after saying that you didn’t.


WALLACE: You — you just, sir, that he’s being —

SEKULOW: No, he’s not being investigated!

WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I said that the — any — let me be crystal clear so you — you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any investigation of the president of the United States, period.

WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he’s being investigated.

SEKULOW: No. The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works. If, in fact, it was correct that the president was being investigated, he would be investigating for taking action that an agency told him to take. So that is protected under the Constitution as his article one power. That’s all I said. So I appreciate you trying to rephrase it, but I’m just being really direct with you, Chris. This is — let me be —

WALLACE: No, I — I — sir, I didn’t rephrase it. The tape will speak — Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said he is being investigated. And it’s not that big —

SEKULOW: Chris, he is — just — no, Chris — that’s (INAUDIBLE) unfair, Chris.

WALLACE: Wait a minute — wait a minute. Jay, and it’s not — Jay, it’s not just being investigated for firing Comey. There’s also the question of what he said to Comey when Comey was still the FBI director. So there’s more than just the fact that he fired Comey.

SEKULOW: He — Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president’s tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That’s what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be. So I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I’ve been crystal clear that the president is not and has not been under investigation. I don’t think I can be any clearer than that.

WALLACE: Well, you don’t know that he’s not under investigation again, sir. I mean you might —

SEKULOW: You know, I can’t read the mind — you’re right, Chris, I can’t read the minds of the special prosecutor.

WALLACE: Well, then, good, OK, so we’re in agreement, you don’t know whether he’s under — you don’t know whether he’s under investigation.

SEKULOW: But I have not been notified. No one has been notified that he is.

WALLACE: You don’t know whether he’s under investigation or not.

SEKULOW: Chris, I —

WALLACE: The question I’m asking you is, does he think that Rod Rosenstein — it’s a very simple question — does he think that Rod Rosenstein did anything wrong?

SEKULOW: The president has not expressed any opinion about Rod Rosenstein.

WALLACE: Does he think that Robert Mueller has done anything wrong?

SEKULOW: First of all, he has not said anything about Robert Mueller. And, Chris, let me say something here. You’re asking me if I had a conversation, which I have not had, about Robert Mueller with the president of the United States on — or anyone else for that matter. I can’t discuss that and would that with you. Unlike James Comey, who leaks information to the press, I actually respect the attorney-client privilege. Apparently, he did not.

WALLACE: Does the President believe — well, you’re speaking for his legal team, so you’re out here to represent him and tell us what the president’s belief is, is that correct?

SEKULOW: No, I’m out here to tell you what the facts are and the legal issues are. I’m not to tell you what the beliefs are. I’m not the client’s conscience; I’m his lawyer.

WALLACE: I understand that and the — and the client — have you spoken the — have you spoken to the president at all?

SEKULOW: Yes, but I’m not going to discuss those conversations with you. Those are privileged under the attorney-client privilege.

WALLACE: Well, I assume that if he asked you to say something, for instance, Marc Kasowitz said all kinds of things about — after Comey’s testimony. I assumed he was speaking for the president

SEKULOW: Marc Kasowitz made a general statement to the press after the testimony of James Comey. That’s what that was about. This — you’re asking me now questions about what people are thinking in their minds, which I don’t read minds, and you’re asking me also what I may or may not have had a conversation with the president about and you understand this. I respect the attorney-client privilege, unlike James Comey.


SEKULOW: I want to be real clear on that too. I’m not going to give you conversations I’ve had with — have or have not had with the president of the United States. So when I’ve had conversations with the president of the United States —

WALLACE: Well, I — your —

SEKULOW: As his lawyer, it’s privileged, period.

WALLACE: Does the president think that Rosenstein, because you talked about this constitutional theory that he took action, that’s on the advice —


WALLACE: Although he says he didn’t take it on the advice of Rosenstein, does he think that Rosenstein should recuse himself, and is healing the groundwork to fire Rosenstein and Mueller?

SEKULOW: I’ve had no conversations, and I’ve heard nothing without that at all. Nothing. I think this — Chris, this points out — let me tell you one thing quickly about the constitutional theory, as you called it. It’s actually called the Constitution. You know, the president has certain (INAUDIBLE) authority under the Constitution. It’s —

WALLACE: Well, you called it the constitutional theory, sir.

SEKULOW: Yes, it is a constitutional theory based on the Constitution.

WALLACE: I understand that.

SEKULOW: Not so-called. It’s the constitutional theory. It’s part of the Constitution. The president has inherent authority.

Here’s what you’re trying to — here’s what you’re trying to do, Chris, and I appreciate that you’re — you’re trying to push back.

WALLACE: Well, now you’re reading minds again. Now you’re reading minds again.

SEKULOW: No, Chris, I deal with fact and law. You were asking me to read people’s minds. That I don’t do.

WALLACE: Well, don’t tell me what I’m trying to — well, don’t tell me what I’m trying to do because you don’t know what I’m trying to do. What I’m trying to get is a straight answer out of you. Let me ask you this —

SEKULOW: Yes, well — sure.

WALLACE: As a matter of law, does the President think that he can be indicted under the Constitution?

SEKULOW: The president — I haven’t had that conversation with the president, but the president can’t be indicted under the Constitution of the activity alleged in something like this. Of course not.

WALLACE: Why is that?

SEKULOW: Because there’s not an investigation. And there’s — there’s no investigation against the president.

WALLACE: Well, you don’t know whether there’s an investigation. Oh, boy, this is weird. You — you don’t know that there’s — whether there’s an investigation. You just told us that.

SEKULOW: Chris, you’re asking me to speculate — so then what you’re asking me to do is to speculate on —

WALLACE: And it would matter. I’m asking you as a matter of law, not whether there’s an investigation. Does the president think he can be indicted as president?

SEKULOW: For — for —

WALLACE: That’s a constitutional issue, isn’t it?

SEKULOW: For obstruction of justice? No, the Constitution’s —

WALLACE: No, for any of it.

SEKULOW: Now, Chris, you know, let’s — let’s be realistic here. You know what the — the answer is. Can the president be indicted for obstruction? You know what the position has been at the Department of Justice since the 1970s and again stated in 2000. That’s not what President — that’s now how you engage a president. There’s a political process if somebody did something wrong. You’re talking about — you’re conflating a constitutional process, criminal law, with an issue of political consequence. So I am his lawyer. I’m not his political advisor.

WALLACE: Senator Dianne Feinstein, a top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded to the president’s tweet this week with this statement. “The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired.” Is she wrong, sir?

SEKULOW: Yes, she’s wrong. First of all, Dianne Feinstein also called for an investigation of James Comey and Loretta Lynch for that whole episode regarding her engagement and calling it a, quote, “matter,” not an “investigation.” But with regard to this particular issue, I mean the tweet — there’s nothing illegal or inappropriate about the tweet. If the tweet came on the heels of a Washington Post story that had five anonymous sources and didn’t even identify the agency from which those sources came from, and that’s what he tweet in response to. It’s that simple, period.

WALLACE: Final question, the president just — just added John Dowd, a high-powered Washington lawyer, to his legal team. Should we expect him to hire other criminal lawyers? And, in a sense, is he preparing for a potential legal battle here?

SEKULOW: Look, I mean John Dowd is — is a legal legend, you know that, in — in — in the — in Washington, D.C., and the president is doing the appropriate thing by hiring lawyers necessary, if there was to be an investigation, if there were to be an investigation, you have the lawyers in place. We’ve got a great legal team led by Marc Kasowitz. We’ve got John Dowd on the team. This is a solid team. Contrary to some of the press reports, a deep team, if necessary.

WALLACE: Do you think — I — I — I misspoke. I’m going to ask one more question. Because I’m not allowed to ask you what the president thinks, do you think that he should stop —

SEKULOW: Of course.

WALLACE: Do you think he should stop tweeting about this case?

SEKULOW: Look, I — here’s the thing on that. You know, people have been asking me that. Look, the president has changed the way in which engagement goes in — I mean you’ve got great ratings, no doubt about it, Chris. But let’s face it, the president speaks to 107 million people through his social media platforms. He revolutionized the election process by utilizing media in a different way. So I — I think, look, the president knows the effectiveness of social media. He’s been very effective at it. Again, I’m his lawyer, I deal with the issues. Nothing that he’s tweeted is causing me any issues whatsoever at this point. Nothing.

WALLACE: Jay, thank you. Thanks for coming in.

SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: It’s always — it’s always interesting to talk to you. Please, come back, and we’ll —

SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: We’ll continue it and maybe this time we’ll get on this — you know what, be here in studio and we can stay on the same wavelength.

SEKULOW: There we go.

WALLACE: All right, sir —

SEKULOW: Happy Father’s Day.

WALLACE: Happy Father’s Day to you too, sir.

via Damian Housman

This is the damnedest thing I've heard a media-head say since .. since Friday?  The only way I can explain it is Chris Wallace has undergone some mind altering procedure that  hard-wired a dialog into his head.  What else could it be?  Whatever it is, Trump ought get the Surgeon General to declare the entire Washing press corps (or as Obama says "corpse) insane, and a threat to national well being. [Video]