He’s like Daniel Webster, if Daniel Webster were drunk off his ass and severely feverish.
Followup: Curious about what sort of coverage this blast of explosive Twitterrhea substitute was garnering, I searched on a chunk of verbiage extracted from the middle of the statement and got – I swear I am not making this up – a Google screen asking if I wanted results in English.
From the Newsweek article, quoting Trump:
The Tea Party was treated far better by the IRS than Donald Trump.
What the F is he talking about here?
“I am aggrieved! Hear me roar!”
“They were the asshats that preceded my cult, but they never got harassed by the authorities! Sad! Unfair!”
I was just writing something that addresses that…
The Tea Party was treated far better than the IRS by Donald Trump
Did you ever notice how conservatives always bring that one up? It was 10 years and several thousand scandals ago, but they never forget.
The Republican Party turning the IRS investigation of Tea Party PAC’s into a persecution scandal was one of the greatest triumphs ever in their ever escalating quest to grift their base, second only to Citizens United.
Because most of those Tea Party groups were out and out scams.
They were the first scam PAC’s, the beginning of the new paradigm, the political campaign as a profit-making venture, the grifting of the voter base.
And, it my opinion that the entire overblown Tea Party IRS scandal was nothing more than Republicans circling the wagons to protect the grift franchise from oversight, to insulate themselves from any remaining regulation not gutted by Citizens United. So we must never forget the time the IRS allegedly targeted Republicans, or they might be subject to oversight in the future.
"… the never ending $32 million Mueller hoax, which already investigated everything that could possible be investigation, “Russia Russia Russia, …”
It appears that the orange shit-gibbon wrote this himself, without any help. 
It was the most investigationy investigation that every investigationed.
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!
Oh yeah. I think he forgot about his role in the whole “lock her up!” movement:
The new phenomenon of “headhunting” prosecutors and AGs—who try to take down their political opponents using the law as a weapon—is a threat to the very foundation of our liberty. That’s what is done in third world countries. Even worse are those who run for prosecutorial or attorney general offices in far-left states and jurisdictions pledging to take out a political opponent. That’s fascism, not justice—and that is exactly what they are trying to do with respect to me, except that the people of our Country won’t stand for it.
Are you all claiming that DJT wrote this^^^ paragraph himself? NO. WAY. “Phenomenon”? “Prosecutorial”? Also only one random capitalization (“Country”)-- there should be lots more. And lots of exclamation points!!!
He’s using the new free ungrammerly plugin.
Qonservatives.
… that’s it. That’s the post.
There’s a bill before Congress preventing “any former President who has been twice impeached” from being buried at Arlington Cemetery, or “Create or display any symbol, monument, or statue commemorating any former President that has been twice impeached by the House of Representatives on or before the date of enactment of this Act or has been convicted of a State or Federal crime relating to actions taken in an official capacity as President of the United States on Federal public land, including any highway, park, subway, Federal building, military installation, street, or other Federal property.”
Not naming any names …
I’m not against the emotion behind it but I think it’s a bad move. It just seems petty and purely political, which is what we want to avoid right now. Let history condemn Trump.
Yeah, or it will become tradition to twice impeach each president of the opposing party.
Republicans would certainly do it, hell, they’ve already said that they would out of retaliation for daring to call their president to account for his crimes.
But it only applies to presidents who have been twice impeached “on or before the date of enactment of this Act”.
Um, this is really really petty.
BY CURRENT RULES, he would be ineligible anyway
Looking at the rules, you have to have been active military. Trump was never active military. Neither were Obama, W. Bush, Clinton, Regan, …
Yeah. I think Trump’s Presidency is a disgrace to the nation, but not specifically because of the number of times he got impeached. If Republican Senators had acted in accordance with their constitutional duty a year ago, Trump would have been removed after his first impeachment.
I’m all for continuing to hold Trump accountable for whatever illegal and unethical actions he’s committed, via lawful investigations of same. But I don’t support making up special rules for his case to deny him specific Presidential privileges, especially one’s he’s not even eligible for in the first place.
No, it also includes Presidents or former Presidents of the United States.