“It is a total witch hunt!”


President Donald Trump and the Russian foreign minister used the same phrase to push back against the widening scandal engulfing the White House.


Trump said in his statement late Thursday that Sessions was “an honest man” who “did not say anything wrong” by denying during his Senate confirmation any contacts with Russian officials — despite having twice met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign.

“He could have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly not intentional,” Trump said in his statement.

There’s a mouthful of double speak. If Sessions spoke more accurately, that would have meant telling the truth. As he didn’t, it was an intentional case of lying, full stop. It’s a simple question: did you meet with so and so? Here’s how to answer that one: yes or no. Could not possibly be more simple. There simply isn’t double speak wiggle room here, regardless of the shit the Tiny Tyrant is pumping out. And if there’s some sort of claim that Sessions just didn’t remember, fine, then that means he’s too damn old for the job, kick him out.

“This whole narrative is a way of saving face for Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed to win,” the president continued. “The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election and now, they have lost their grip on reality. The real story is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is a total witch hunt!”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled his agreement with Trump early Friday and also denounced the scandal as a “witch hunt.”

“I can cite the media that say all this is very much reminiscent of a witch hunt and the McCarthyism era which we all thought was long gone,” Lavrov said.

This whole narrative is about corrupt liars with Nazi inclinations infesting the white house. This whole narrative is about a puppet regime. This whole narrative, well, this could go on all day. As for this godsdamn witch hunt bullshit, enough! Stop it already. It’s not in the least a witch hunt, has nothing at all in common with a witch hunt. Anyone seen The Inquisition around lately? Seen gibbets with corpses hanging? Stakes with people on fire, greasy oily smoke? No? Then shut the fuck up. Criticism is not a witch hunt. Attempting to find out the truth is not a witch hunt. Asking questions is not a witch hunt. This is the cry of fucking idiots everywhere, and in many cases, the cry of guilty fucking idiots. Oh, and McCarthyism was a commie hunt, just so you know.

Full story here.


  1. chigau (違う) says

    I doubt that Trump himself wrote that statement.
    “narrative” is not a Trumpian word.

  2. Ice Swimmer says

    Well, there are TV shows that feature narrators, so he may even have it in his active vocabulary. 8-)

  3. Kengi says


    … that means he’s too damn old for the job…

    Too damn addled for the job. “Old” and “addled” aren’t the same thing. For example, RBG is 13 years older than Sessions, yet much more clear headed.

  4. brucegee1962 says

    The dumbest thing about this controversy (“dumb” in the sense of “Jeff Sessions is clearly an idiot”) is that all he had to do in his testimony, in response to the questions, is to say “Well, in my position as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I did talk to the Russian Ambassador twice, but we didn’t discuss my role in the Trump campaign at all during those meetings.” Even if it wasn’t true, and he DID discuss the campaign, no one could have proved it. It might have led to a raised eyebrow or two at the hearing and a headline on page 16 of the Washington Post, but then everyone would have forgotten about it because of the outrage over the latest Trumptweet.

    Whereas now, he’s looking at a possible perjury citation. He had those meetings in his office and a public place, just last year — it takes an amazing amount of stupidity to think the word wouldn’t get out.

  5. says


    Too damn addled for the job. “Old” and “addled” aren’t the same thing.

    Yes, I’m aware. I said what I meant, too fucking OLD. As for old Ruth, well, she fell flat on her face more than once recently, look at the Kaepernick incident. Why did that happen? Because she is old. The majority of people become more conservative as they age. No, that doesn’t apply to all people, but it sure as hell does to most.

    I’m not young, I’m 59 years old, and still a flaming liberal. That said, I am sick to fucking death of our government being run by people in their bloody 70s. Enough. We could use a fucktonne of much younger people in government, and does that ever include the presidency. I’m not happy about 70something year olds running for the job.

  6. Kengi says

    Well, in that case, you wrote the OP in a way that totally failed to convey what you meant. (Of course, you didn’t, and said so.) You wrote “And if there’s some sort of claim that Sessions just didn’t remember, fine, then that means he’s too damn old for the job, kick him out.” Your complaint focused not on a person becoming too conservative with age, or a lack of diversity in government, but on a person failing to remember an event due to that person’s age.

    In other words, you were complaining about that person being addled, not about their lack of representational diversity or conservative leanings. But you blame that addled state on their age. I don’t see how that’s not ageism. Certainly the assertion concerning RBG “Why did that happen? Because she is old” is ageist.

    The Kaepernick incident was a display of white privilege seen not just in old people, but, unfortunately, in people of all ages. Statistically racism may be more common in older people, but that should never be used to condemn an individual. As for younger people in government, shall I suggest people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer? Yeah, that would be helpful! Obviously age isn’t the deciding factor in that decision. But for old people age should be the deciding factor?

    A more diverse government is a clearly needed priority, but that means keeping some older people as well as bringing in younger people. Just becasue someone turns 70 doesn’t automatically mean they can’t be trusted with an important job. I’m sick to death of so many Americans treating older people as if they were all mentally incompetent children solely because of their age. Even trained caregivers in extended care facilities commonly fall prey to this infantilization of the very people they are supposed to be helping.

    I have the great honor of being the caregiver to my 88 year old father. I respect him and his experience as my elder. He is very progressive, and has used his deep experience to guide my own values in life. He is also smart enough to use the experience of others to continue to mold his world view, and it hasn’t’ made him more conservative in the least.

    While his struggles with mild dementia from previous strokes would now disqualify him from a position of authority in the government, it wouldn’t be his age that would be the disqualifying trait.

  7. Ice Swimmer says

    I’m a bit torn on the age issue. On one hand, people lose their mental and physical abilities at a different pace with age, but the risk of senility and death in the office does increase with age. My personal policy has been that there needs to be exceptionally good reasons for voting anybody over 70 for a executive position in an election.

    This stems from the fact that Finland has been there already once in my lifetime. The long-time (1956-81) President of the Republic Kekkonen* started to have dementia (occasional episodes at first) in mid-1970s (he was born in the year 1900), which was hidden from the public. By 1981 he was already severely impaired by the lapses in memory, they could no longer hide his condition and only with luck and heavy persuasion by his son they got him to sign his letter of resignation and the Prime Minister became the Acting President. The day after signing the letter, Kekkonen had forgotten the letter and thought he was still the President. Kekkonen was probably quite smart and he was a physically fit outdoorsman and an avid cross-country skier, at least until early 1970s, leading a healthy lifestyle apart from smoking big cigars and drinking heavily with his buddies occasionally**.

    A demented President with strong executive powers is a disaster waiting to happen. Also, (concurring with Kengi, I think)I think there should be younger politicians as well as older so that the younger ones can learn the ropes and be ready for the higher positions when the older ones retire, fall ill or die (or badly lose touch with the changing world). I’m not saying that one should never vote an older person, sometimes it’s the better choice, but nobody lives forever.
    * = I’ve got mixed feelings about him.
    ** = There’s 8 mm film of Kekkonen being drunk in an airplane returning from a visit and singing a song about an emigrant returning from America (my translation): “I haven’t been wasting my money on frivolous things, I’ve gambled and drunk them.”

  8. ledasmom says

    Back during the primaries, I was thinking we needed younger candidates. I am 48 myself and I know how much my perception of the world was formed by the conflicts and disagreements of the seventies and eighties. The generals fight the wars of their youths; the politicians rebut the opposing arguments of theirs.
    One of the consequences of fewer deaths from infectious disease and prolonged survival with other illnesses is fewer openings for the young. Either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would have made a fine president, but so would many, many younger politicians.

  9. Kengi says

    In Hillary Clinton’s case, she seemed to get better with age. The younger Clinton was much more of a neoliberal. Her experience with such policies shaved many of those rough edges off by the time she ran for president.

Leave a Reply