OrangeVerse LXI: A Week of Spam

For some time, I've subscribed to Trump emails on a secondary email account. All of the emails - and there are a LOT of them - go to my spam folder, and every now and then I nose around to see what's on his mind. 

The emails come from a variety of addresses. In this latest barrage of requests for money, President Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., DonaldJTrump.com, Team Trump, and Trump Dinner Alert all sent at least one email.

Today, I realized there's a certain odd poetry to the subject lines of these emails.  And so, we have today's OrangeVerse: a Week of Spam. 

Apr 12

15 Patriots 

 

Apr 13

My father chose YOU

 

 Apr 14

This has NEVER. HAPPENED. BEFORE.

Do you want to be a Trump MVP? Offer valid for 1 hour

 Invitation for YOU 

Here's your winner...

 

Apr 15

Pending

 You're on the list

I want you to know how important you are to me

 I endorsed Sarah Palin

Sad

Offer: available

 

Apr 16

Chicken or steak?

We EXTENDED your 7X-IMPACT

I have something special for you

3000% MORE

 

Apr 17

You're 1 out of 100

Dinner?

I've unlocked an exclusive DOUBLE ENTRY

LIMITED EDITION

 

Apr 18

Join NOW

I have a TOP SECRET video message for you

My father is about to release a never-bef0re-seen video message

Your wallet needs this

NEVER. HAPPENED. BEFORE.

Contribution status: PENDING

My contribution status will remain 'PENDING' - as will my membership status. I received more than two dozen emails on that, including nine telling me it was my last chance to renew my expired membership. They are relentless, I tell you.

Relentless - and effective. Politico reports that

Trump's Save America PAC crossed $110 million in the bank at the end of February, after taking in $3.5 million during the month and spending just $1.2 million.

That is more money than both national political parties - the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee - have combined in their main bank account...

And, to no one's surprise I'm sure,

Trump has done little to spend his largesse around the party. The committee did not report any new donations or independent expenditures backing Trump-endorsed candidates. 

What poetry are you finding these days? Drop a comment, if you like. 

Email of the Week 10/1/20

Not unexpectedly, most of the political emails I received this week were all about the Benjamins - after all, yesterday was September 30th, and the end of the all important third-quarter fundraising period. 

A couple of the emails weren't just straight-out asks for donations. For example, Papa Joe spoke about the debate a little, as a preface for a $25 donation request, to "make this fund-raising hour huge"  and, of course, to meet the quarterly fund-raising goal. 

Here are Biden's quick thoughts on the debate:

Sue, I just stepped off the debate stage.

It was a real battle out there, but I hope I made you proud by calling out Donald Trump's lies and failures, and by letting the American people know what I - and everyone who is a part of this campaign - stand for.

And it goes on to talk about a 'debate night contest.' I must have missed that email, so I wasn't disappointed that I didn't get a phone call from Biden himself, which was the prize. There was also mention of the great fundraising that the debate inspired, and

...Sue, I'm serious. We're in this thing to win - together. 

And we're in it to win because American can't afford four more years of Donald Trump. It's time to build back better than we were before. 

I can't afford to give $25, but I'll still keep reading the emails. 

The other, more compelling debate-related email was from Tom Steyer, the billionaire activist who dropped out of the Democratic primary race on Sadie Hawkins Day. Take a look.

Susan,

 Last night's presidential debate was chaotic. Mr. Trump refused to follow the rules of a moderated discussion. He then spewed lie after lie - resulting in 90 minutes of desperate, incomprehensible bluster.

I was proud to watch Vice President Biden's thoughtful responses and detailed answers in spite of the mayhem all around him. He reminded us all of the very clear choice this election, between  a wannabe despot and a compassionate statesman.  

Thanks to you and the thousands of people who demanded climate coverage, we had the first direct question on climate change from a moderator in 20 years and the first sustained debate on climate ever. You did that.

And it couldn't be more important. While Trump strung together 17 lies about the climate crisis and continued his dangerous denial, Biden laid out his urgent, bold climate plan not only to deal with the crises we're facing right now, but to also address environmental justice and create millions of well-paying union jobs.

If you took anything away from last night's debate, let it be this: We must do everything in our power to elect Joe Biden.  Please sign up to volunteer with NextGen America today and help us build turnout for a Biden-Harris victory. 

Mr. Trump's dangerous comments were not limited to climate change. In addition to refusing to accept the election results, he refused to denounce white supremacists and gave orders to domestic terrorists to "stand by." These comments are not to be taken lightly.  

 If you took anything away from last night's debate, let it be this: We must do everything in our power to elect Joe Biden.  Please sign up to volunteer with NextGen America today and help us build turnout for a Biden-Harris victory. 

Thank yo for being in this fight. 

Tom 

For not asking me for money, for asking me to volunteer (even though I'm not a young person, which is the demographic NextGen America speaks to), for not taking his eyes off the prize - beating Donald Trump - and for staying true to his passion, dealing with climate change,  Steyer earns the coveted Email of the Week.

What's in your inbox?

Email of the Week 9/17/20

Taking a slightly different approach this week, and featuring an actual piece of mail my brother-in-law received from none other than former Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Sanders, you'll recall, was no stranger to spilling falsehoods from the podium during her tenure as Trump's mouthpiece, and she's more than happy to volunteer to share people's thoughts with the president, if they would only respond to her survey and make a donation to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), of course. 

Here are some excerpts from her letter:

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Enclosed, please find your STOP FAKE NEWS petition, which is prepared specifically for your signature.

It is vital you return your STOP FAKE NEWS petition right away, because the DC/New York "reporters" are totally out of control;

X  The New York Times prints articles with quotes from unnamed "sources" all attacking president Trump.

X  MSNBC lets unhinged liars like Congressman Adam Schiff go on TV and smear the president with ridiculous falsehoods; and

X CNN has entire panels of "experts" who spend all night telling made up stories to the American people about presidential "wrongdoing" that simply does not exist. 

I for one, can't sit idly by any longer as the Democrats and their medial allies try to tear down our president, our Republican Party and our values with malicious smears and pervasive lies. Your name was forwarded to me as a strong pro-America patriot, so I am counting on you to join me. 

Trust me, I know that the best way to handle these people is to constantly call out their ridiculous lies, slander and abuse, which they constantly level at our Commander-in-Chief simply because they hate him and they want him out of office.

***So please sign and return your STOP FAKE NEWS petition, which I will show to president Trump as a sign that the American people have his back and do not believe the lies being spewed on TV, online, and in print every day by left-wing radicals in the media.***

The letter went on for another page, talking about how important it was for a donation to be included, and for the Rs to hold the Senate, and did I mention, for a donation to be included? 

Here's what my brother-in-law was supposed to have returned to Ms. Sanders:

I can assure you that his 'best contribution" is a whopping zero dollars - as mine would be, and as would the contributions of most people I know. 

I'm thinking I have to  subscribe to emails from the former Trump mouthpiece - it sounds like it might be fun. Until I on her mailing list, I'll be happy with just awarding Sanders the snail mail version of the coveted Email of the Week. 

Email of the Week (v22)

Somehow, I managed to get unsubscribed from all of the Biden-Harris team emails - no more Team Joe, Joe Biden, Joseph R. Biden, Biden 2020, Kamala Harris, Biden-Harris 2020, and so on. 

I suspect it was due to neglect - I admit I haven't been all that responsive to the emails - but with nothing new for the past several days, it's been pretty quiet in my politics inbox.

I did get an email from Papa Joe's camp touting my popularity. In case you didn't know, I was a hot commodity for a minute there, and here's who let me know that: Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Khizr Khan, Carole King, Symone Sanders, Jill Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Tammy Duckworth, and Biden himself.

They wanted my money, of course - although, according to an email I got today from Ballotpedia, the Biden-Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee together raised a whopping $365,000,000 in August - far exceeding the previous record of $193,000,000 raised in September 2008 by the Obama/DNC combo.

I did get an email that I thought was interesting, and while it came from a former presidential candidate, it had nothing to do with the campaign.  Take a look.

Friend,

 

Racial disparities within our communities are a matter of life and death, and COVID-19, which has had a disproportionate and devastating impact on Black people across the country, is a stark example -- and a call to action.

The effects of inequity were present well before the pandemic, and they show up across a range of health outcomes for Black Americans, from higher infant mortality to higher death rates from cancer and heart disease. And these health inequalities contribute to wealth inequalities -- and vice-versa. It is a debilitating cycle that we must confront head-on.

Today, I joined the Presidents and Deans of four Historically Black Medical Schools to announce an initiative to take on these connected challenges. Bloomberg Philanthropies is committing $100 million over the next four years to America's four Historically Black Medical Schools -- Meharry Medical College, Howard University College of Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. This funding will allow the schools to provide scholarships up to $100,000 to nearly every medical student currently enrolled and receiving financial aid.

These four schools tend to have higher graduation rates of Black students than medical schools overall -- in part because increasing diversity in medicine and offering medical services for communities most in need are ingrained in their mission, so they provide more support to help students overcome obstacles and graduate.

Research has shown that Black patients have better health outcomes with Black doctors. More Black doctors will mean more Black lives saved, and a reduction in the health issues that can limit economic opportunity in Black communities. That won't cure the disease of disparities within our health care and economic systems, but it is an essential part of the treatment.

During my presidential campaign, I announced The Greenwood Initiative, which was aimed at closing the racial wealth gap and securing economic justice for Black Americans. That work continues through the partnership we're announcing today -- with more to come in the future.

Read about our effort to support more Black doctors, and the lives it can save -- and please share the op-ed with your family and friends to raise awareness about these urgent challenges.

Have you figured out which former presidential candidate is behind this initiative? If you guessed Michael Bloomberg, you guessed correctly. 

And, for investing his own money in something worthwhile, instead of asking for my money to run an ad in a swing state or something, he gets the coveted Email of the Week award. 

Email of the Week (v5)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on.

Since last week, I've gotten another 94 emails from the six candidates I'm following: Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, that guy from Vermont, Andrew Yang, Mayor Pete, and Elizabeth Warren. The latter two, with 26 and 22 emails, respectively, accounted for more than half this week's total.

For the most part, the candidates were all about their Q4 fundraising - or their opponents' Q4 fundraising, as the case may be, and all about caucusing in Iowa, less than a month away now.  They're buying ads, they're getting endorsements, they're getting positive press, want to give me stickers, and want me to give them my opinions. All of that made it hard for me to find an email of the week, until boom - there it was. The email that was to the point, was unique, spoke to people in simple terms, and left no questions about what the candidate was up to.

And so, without further a-doobie, here's our coveted Email of the Week.

Quite frankly, our criminalization of cannabis is stupid and racist. 

Cannabis has been legalized in 33 states and the District of Columbia. It is short-sighted and illogical that it is still considered a controlled substance by U.S. federal law.

What's worse is that thousands of Americans are in jail for marijuana-related offenses, particularly people of color.

If you agree that we should proceed with full legalization of marijuana and pardon those in jail for nonviolent marijuana-related offenses, add your name to our petition:

ADD YOUR NAME

As president, Andrew Yang will:

Support the full legalization of marijuana at the federal level and remove it from the controlled substances list. 

Expunge the federal convictions of all marijuana-related use or possession offenses. 

Identify non-violent drug offenders for probation and potential early release.  

Stand with Andrew by adding your name to this petition.

Let’s keep putting Humanity First,

Team Yang

What is it they used to say, smoke 'em if you've got 'em?

Email of the Week (v1)

I mentioned in last week's Who Loves Me, Baby? update on the Dem presidential candidate emails that I was going to switch things up a bit, and officially end the social experiment on their emails. I also promised you a recap on all of that:

• In all, I read over 1600 emails from the candidates; there were likely more than that. I'd guess that fully 80% of them included a direct ask for money, with more suggesting that money would be nice. My guess is that fewer than 10% of the emails offered a policy, a position, a reason why they person is running, and so on. 

• The most consistently hopeful? Mayor Pete and Cory Booker. The most consistently negative? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The most consistent? Amy Klobuchar, hands down. The most mentions of Donald Trump? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The most desperate? Julian Castro - that was no contest. 

Going forward, I will still keep an eye on the candidates, and will continue sharing the email of the week. Here's this week's winner, from Beto O'Rourke, who dropped out of the race back in November.

There’s a painting that hangs in the Capitol rotunda depicting General George Washington in front of the Continental Congress 236 years ago, resigning his commission as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.

The artist, John Trumbull, believed that it illustrated “one of the highest moral lessons ever given to the world.”

Why?

Because here was a man at the height of his powers, a man who had led America to a stunning defeat of the most powerful military on the planet, a man who could have made the case to be commander for life, or even King, a case that would have resonated with many in a young, unstable country still not free from the military threat of Great Britain or foreign interference in our affairs… who nonetheless voluntarily resigned his commission and gave up his power.

He did it for the greater good of this nascent democracy and in support of the idea that no man is above the law or the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

He knew that if this great experiment, this profound idea of America, was going to work, then at this decisive moment he must set the example.

And though he failed abjectly in other defining moral tests — he owned enslaved people, failed to work for the abolition of slavery, and in so doing set a perverse example and standard that would require a civil war to overcome — this precedent that personal ambition would be subjugated to the interests of the republic allowed us to inherit a government, as John Adams described it, “of laws, not of men.”

This precedent also helped to inspire a Constitution that provides protection against those who would put their own interests ahead of the country’s, including provision for impeachment of the commander-in-chief should they abuse the power of their office.

The idea of self-government and the Constitution that guarantees it were fought for and defended by succeeding generations of Americans. The service members who lost their lives in the Civil War, and in the World Wars that followed, paid the ultimate price to see this idea through. So did the civil rights marchers, the freedom riders, the men and women and even children who forced this country to move closer to realizing it for everyone by adopting the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965.

We have inherited the service and sacrifice of those who came before us. What we choose to do with this inheritance will define us for future generations and will be the example we pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Which brings us to this moment and the choice we have before us.

Wondering on Wednesday (v95)

We'll get right to it tonight.

I wonder if there's anyone out there who actually believes that Donny Trump didn't tell his daddy in advance about the meeting with the Russians who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton, and didn't tell him after the meeting that there was nothing to be gained?

I wonder if there's a legitimate reason, other than "well, better her than her father," for Ivanka to sit in on the G20 meeting in her father's place?  "Angela M" approves, I read, just meant that delegations can choose who gets to sit in the meetings, not necessarily that she approved of Ivanka being there.

And on a related note, I wonder if anyone thinks Chelsea Clinton could have given a better response than she did to Trump's tweet. Here's that exchange.

I saw that Bernie Sanders is not ruling out a run in 2020. Anyone else wondering if that's the silliest thing they've heard today? And I wonder, if he does in fact run, will he pretend to be a Democrat again or will he have the courage to run as who he is?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has let us know that law-making is more important that vacationing, and he plans on keeping the Senate in DC instead of starting the August recess on time. In making his announcement, he blamed the Democrats - no wonder there, right? After all, when you can't get your own party in line to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, with no Dems invited to participate, you need something else to blame for inaction. So, hit the opposition for being oppositional on Trump nominations...  Makes sense.

And finally, Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California (natch) has submitted an article of impeachment against the president, for obstruction and for 'impulsive incompetence' or something. And it seems that incompetence may be considered an impeachable offence, according to Charles L Black, a Yale Law School professor.

The political nature of impeachment is consistent with the constitutional framers' decision to entrust the impeachment process to the legislature rather than the courts. As Gerald Ford famously noted in reference to efforts to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

I wonder, how long before we have any outcome from any investigation, and whether any of those outcomes will include any obstruction?  We can argue the incompetence issue until we're blue in the face, but I don't anticipate there being any serious movement towards impeachment, even on the part of the Dems, unless and until there's some 'there' there.

Anyone think differently on that?

Trump in Transition (v17)

James Comey, you're fired!

The celebrity president has fired the celebrity FBI director, only a few months after jokingly complaining that Comey had become more famous than Trump.

Should we have recognized that as a sign that Comey's tenure as FBI director was bound to be short?

In all seriousness, I'm not sure any of us really expected Comey to make it through, although I'm also not sure anyone thought the head-chopping would come so fast.

There were a few things working against him, not the least of which was his decision that Hillary Clinton would not be charged for anything related to her email server.

And, of course, there was that press conference last July, which polarized the last remaining two people who were still speaking to each other: he never should have said anything, it wasn't his decision to make, the press conference was wrong, the conclusions were wrong... on and on it went, and Trump did not stay on the sidelines, either - he blasted Comey six ways from Sunday, at every rally he held. Heck, blasting Comey was part and parcel of #MAGA for a while there.

And then, everything took a different turn in late October, when Comey discovered more stuff in an unrelated investigation into Clinton aide Huma Abedin's husband, the notorious sexter Anthony Weiner.  While that investigation must have been sickening, all the sudden Comey was "mildly nauseous" about interjecting himself into the election: he was between a very bad rock and a catastrophic hard place, and so he chose bad and told Congress there was more to look at in the Clinton investigation.

The Left was in a tizzy; the Right was in a state of euphoria, knowing that Comey plus Wikileaks plus Trumpian bluster would be an extraordinary burden for any candidate, even one as experienced as Hillary Clinton.

Clinton lost, the three million or so popular votes notwithstanding, and there were Trump and Comey, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s - oh, never mind. You get the picture.

Until Russia. All that Russia stuff, and then Comey's recent testimony, in which he confirmed there were investigations into Trump's team and Russia and Russia and Russia. Oh, and some lies about Clinton - there was that, too.

Comey perjured himself in his testimony, it would seem. Isn't that what it is when a person lies to Congress? The Department of Justice had to send a correction to the Senate regarding how Abedin handled emails (she did not forward hundreds and thousands of emails to a personal laptop shared with her husband), and the extent to which she forwarded anything classified (almost never, which was also not as described by Comey) and regarding certain terrorism investigations (Comey noted there were some 2,000 of them, when in fact it's more like 300).

One might wonder whether Comey exaggerated, or was mistaken, or lied in his testimony because he knew no good would come from it?

And there was still Russia.

While Trump's letter of termination to Comey was self-congratulatory, noting that Comey had told him three times that he was not a target of investigation, the fact remains that there are open investigations and not just the wimpy ones in Congress that are moving slower than mole asses covered in molasses.

Comey was dismissed not because he perjured himself, but because of what happened last July, because he reached the wrong conclusion on Clinton, according to the Administration. Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein noted

I cannot defend the director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives (emphasis added).

And yet... On Monday, Trump tweeted about Russia investigation(s) as he has a number of times.

.

The answer, it appears, at least in Trump's opinion, is "Tuesday." 

Trump in Transition (v8)

Remember back in July, when the GOP was rocking in Cleveland?

And General Michael Flynn was on stage echoing the chants of Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up! when he talked about Hillary Clinton thinking she was above the law?

Fun times, that was for the retired general. No one's above the law, certainly not Hillary Clinton and her recklessness with classified information, oh no sirree.

Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!

Flynn famously said at the convention

Yeah that's right, lock her up... You know why we're saying that? We're saying that because if I, a guy who knows this business, if I did tenth - a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today So Crooked Hillary Clinton, leave this race now.

Seems he might have done more than a tenth of what Clinton did. She admitted she inadvertently and carelessly passed classified information to others, aides and advisers, State Department employees.

Flynn, on the other hand, did something else entirely, according to a report in the Washington Post about a 2010  investigation. The WaPo provided a link to documents they obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request. Here's what the documents say.

While serving as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, CJ-2 International Security Assistance Force, Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan Major General (MG) (Flynn) shared United States classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan without proper authorization. 

Whoa, Nelly!

The Commander, US CENTCOM, initiated an AR 15-6 investigation upon receipt of a complaint from a Navy Intelligence Specialist that MG (Flynn) inappropriately shared US classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan. The inquiry was conducted by a properly appointed official and was thorough. The AR 15-6 found that some inappropriate sharing of US classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials occurred as a result of MG actions. The AR 15-6 investigation is classified SECRET.

So, he did it. He shared classified information with foreigners.

Department of Defense Inspector General completed an oversight review of the AR 15-6 investigation and concurred with the findings. 

Yep, it must be true. The DoDIG concurred. So, was he locked up? Hell no - he was promoted!

The Department of the Army strongly supports the nomination of MG (Flynn) as Assistant Director of National Intelligence for Partner Engagement The Commander CENTCOM reviewed the AR 15-6 investigation and noted the efforts to properly cleanse the foreign officer's read-books. He further stated that there was no evidence of senior officer misconduct, rather there was keen attention to mission accomplishment in a coalition, combat environment. In light of the mitigating and extenuating circumstances concerning the adverse information ascribed to MG Flynn and MG Flynn's exceptional qualifications and dedicated service, his nomination and appointment to lieutenant general is fully supported and is the best interest of the Department of Defense and the United States of America.

Flynn dodged a bullet, got promoted, and eventually left the military. He hung out in Russia, he advised several of the Republican candidates for President, while saying there was no role for him in the administration. He retweets nonsense, fake news (he's deleted those tweets now, it seems).

And now, he's going to be advising the president on national security. Unless, of course...

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

If Matt Lauer Were a Journalist

Wednesday night, NBC hosted their "Commander in Chief Forum" from the USS Intrepid.

Inexplicably, they had Matt Lauer do the interviews with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I'm not sure if whoever they really wanted to do it was in the john when the assignment was handed out, or if there are still some pipe dreams over at 30 Rock that Lauer is somehow on a par with Tom Brokaw and able to cross from Today to tonight without flinching. Brokaw, not for nothing, likely would have done a fantastic job with the forum.

The show was doomed almost from the start: barely 27 minutes with each candidate to take questions not just from Lauer, but also from servicemen and women. Each of the audience questions were introduced by Hallie Jackson, who had to tell us who the person was, where they served, what they're doing now, whether they were a Democrat or Republican - and that they had a question for Mrs. Clinton or for Mr. Trump, which was already more than obvious, since they were standing with Jackson.

Before the start of the forum, I wondered on Facebook whether questions to Clinton would focus on the past or the future, and whether questions to Trump would focus on the future or the past. I had my answer pretty quickly, especially on the Clinton side of the equation.

Not being a journalist, Lauer decided that the best thing to do with his limited time Clinton was to spend fully one third of it -- between 10 and 12 minutes, depending on which clock you watched - talking about the emails. (Is that sufficient emphasis for everyone?)

For the record: Clinton has apologized for using a privater server. She has indicated it was a mistake to use a private server. She has said she won't use a private server ever again. She indicated that she never sent correctly marked emails -- those with a header and one of the three 'classifications' from her server. She has said she takes classified information very seriously.  She's said all of these thing dozens of times. It's now up to people to either believe her or disbelieve her, trust her or not trust her.  Oh, she's also talked about the trust or the lack thereof, also dozens of times.  Again, believe her or not, trust her or not.

But can we please stop wasting time on this, and instead let her tell us what she wants to do if elected, so we can decide to trust her on that, or not?

When it was Trump's turn, Lauer asked him how he has been preparing for being Commander in Chief. Trump provided the same basic answer as he did when asked about sacrifices he had made: he built a company, he traveled a lot, he's done "tremendously well dealing with China and dealing with so many of the countries that are just ripping this country"(he actually said that). You know, the kind of stuff everyone does to get ready for commanding the world's police force. And he has good judgment, he's "called so many of the shots" whatever on earth that means. Those statements weren't challenged by Lauer.

Nor did Lauer seriously press Trump on some of his campaign statements, either.

Lauer: so let me read some of the things you've said. "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Was that the truth?

Trump: Well, the generals under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not been successful. ISIS...

Lauer: Do you know more about ISIS than they do?

Trump: I think under the leadership of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the generals have been reduced to rubble...

Then they had an exchange on Patton and MacArthur, and grave-rolling, and moved on.  And it got worse.

Lauer decided to ask Trump about the intelligence briefings he now receives, opening with this question:

Did you learn new things in that briefing?

Seriously? That's the question?

Here's Trump's answer:

First of all, I have great respect for the people that gave us the briefings.  We -- they were terrific people. They were experts on Iraq and Iran and different parts of -- and Russia. But, yes, there was one thing that shocked me. And it just seems to me that what they said President Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who is another total disaster, did exactly the opposite. (emphasis added)

Trump basically said that the President and the current and former Secretaries of State did exactly the opposite of what the intelligence briefers told them, which is an of itself is absurd, since the intelligence people don't tell them what to do (and the fact that having a conversation about the confidential security briefings in this forum is absurd). Instead of probing for more info, we got this:

Lauer: Did you learn anything in that briefing -- again, not going into specifics -- that makes you reconsider some of the things you say you can accomplish, like defeating ISIS quickly?

Trump: No, I didn't learn anything from that standpoint. What I did learn is that our leadership, Barack Obama, did not follow our experts and our truly -- when they call it intelligence, it's there for a reason -- what our experts said to do. (Lauer tries to go to Hallie Jackson, but Trump keeps talking) And I was very, very surprised. In almost every instance. And I could tell you. I have pretty good with the body language. I could tell they were not happy. Our leaders did not follow what they were recommending.

 Lauer: Hallie?

Any reporter -- even the worst of  the worst -- would have asked an actual follow up question.

Fox News or Breitbart would have given Trump time to flesh out his answer, embellish it a little more, give some details on how the intelligence people let him know Obama et al did the opposite of what they recommended. He would certainly have had time to bash everyone a little more, make a few more outrageous statements, which would have been met with the standard "Oh, golly, gee gosh, that Barack Hussein Obama, whatever will we do about him?"  

WaPo or the New York Times, outlets that have "been mean to" Trump, would have asked him why he thought that the people who did the briefings were policy makers or policy recommenders, when that's not their role? Or what kind of body language was used to telegraph their dismay? Was it eye rolling? Was it getting all squirmy in their chairs? And just about everyone would have asked if he truly thought any of his comments were appropriate, given the confidential nature of the briefings he received? And whether he thought it was appropriate to let our enemies know that our leaders ignored their intelligence briefings, especially since he's against telegraphing our next steps, and we need to be unpredictable?

But Matt Lauer? Nah - let's go to Hallie for another audience question.

I tell you, the Commander in Chief forum would have sounded a lot different with a journalist doing the questions.