Category Archives: Culture

S5E9 The Porn Star

Culture, Media, Politics

If it did not already exist, my next book would be All I Really Needed to Know I Learned Watching Seinfeld: Or how the second button literally makes or breaks the shirt (Carlos Nicco/2014).  This was never more true than this week when I realized how Season 5/Episode 9: The Masseuse explains Donald Trump’s mindset during his 2006 encounter with Stormy Daniels.

The November 18, 1993 edition of the “show about nothing” stars a young and almost unrecognizable Jennifer Coolidge as Jodi, a professional masseuse.  Her and Seinfeld’s physical relationship is good with one exception.  Jerry is obsessed with her giving him a massage.  However, Jodi’s reluctance sends a clear message.  Just because she is a masseuse does not mean every man should expect she is a easy mark for a little back rubbing.  Sound familiar?

The following is a verbatim excerpt of “The Masseuse” script.  Jodi is supposedly meeting Jerry for a dinner date.  Only the names and location have been altered.

[setting: Tahoe Hotel Penthouse Suite]

(Donald is opening the door for Stormy. New age music is playing, and the lights are shaded)

STORMY: Hey.

DONALD: Hi.

STORMY: Hi. (kissing) I was running late and I didn’t have a chance to drop off my stuff before I came over.

DONALD: Ah, no problem. That’s fine.

STORMY: What’s with this music?

DONALD: That’s new age music. Sounds of the forest. I find it soothing. Hey, look at this! What do you know? A massage table! This is great! (he starts to install the table)

STORMY: What are you doing?

DONALD: Just checking it out. Look at how this thing is made. Can I tell you something? That’s a hell of a piece of equipment.

STORMY: Actually, I should get a new one.

DONALD: Nonsense. This one’s fine. (as he sits on the table)

STORMY: So, where do you wanna go? (as she puts her hand on his shoulder)

DONALD: Go? Why go anywhere? (as he places his hand over hers. She starts to massage his shoulders a little) Ahh, that feels good. Yeah. That’s, uh… That’s good. (he tries to go further. He grabs her hands over his shoulders and he lies down on the table on his chest) Yeah, that’s nice. That’s very nice.

STORMY: (she stops massaging) No. No, this isn’t good. I can’t do this.

DONALD: Why, what’s wrong? (he grabs her hands and force her to keep them on his shoulders)

STORMY: I can’t (she tries harder to pull her hands away)

DONALD: No. Yes you can. (he hangs on)

STORMY: No, I can’t!

DONALD: Come on! I know it’s something you wanna do! (she pulls harder and he falls right off the table)

(scene ends)

To add to the synchronistic relationship between this episode and the last two days’ testimony at the Trump election interference trial, one of the side stories in “The Masseuse” involves George Constanza’s relationship with Karen, who actually wants to sleep with him.  However, he too is obsessed with Jodi, not because she is a masseuse, because she finds him obnoxious.  Does that also ring a bell?

Karen is played by Lisa Edelstein, who some of you may remember appeared in Season 1 of West Wing.  She portrayed Laurie, a call girl and law student with whom White House aide Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) becomes obsessed.  There is no truth to the rumor Aaron Sorkin recently told friends Laurie was originally going to be an adult movie star or Playboy playmate, but the West Wing creator thought it too unbelievable.

Despite these coincidences, “The Masseuse” and “The Porn Star” differ in one most significant way.  When District Attorney Alvin Bragg pitched the latter to its potential audience, many assumed it too was a “show about nothing.”  But the witnesses and documents presented in the first three weeks of testimony suggest just the opposite.  

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

FIRE on Campus

Culture, Economics

This morning, Joe Scarborough invoked similar protests against the Vietnam War in 1968 to warn participants in pro-Palestinian activities on college campuses that such behavior is counterproductive to their cause.  He rightfully pointed out that chaos on college campuses and in the streets of Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention contributed to Richard Nixon’s election and prolonged the war for five more years.  What he did not say was, “Students who participated in that movement were RIGHT!”  The war, based on a questionable premise and which propped up a corrupt government in South Vietnam, was a blemish on America’s standing in the international community and robbed America of the potential of tens of thousands young U.S. citizens who died or were physically and mentally disabled.

The students to whom Scarborough referred were a very small percentage of those who sought an end to the war.  And as I wrote about my own experience at the University of Virginia during the Vietnam era, some of the more radical members of the movement tried to lower the temperature when they personally witnessed the consequences when rabble-rousers hijacked the cause.  That is why so many of us find the campus protests so conflicting.  We believe Hamas is a clear and present danger to Israel which is justified in eliminating that threat.  We mourn for both victims of the Hamas terrorist attack and innocent Palestinians who suffer from the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza’s population centers.  We share the protesters’ concern about the aspirations and dignity of Palestinians.  Yet we agree that harassment of Jewish students and calls for the destruction of Israel are totally unacceptable and understand the Israel/Hamas conflict has empowered some individuals to go public with their long-standing antisemitism.

I have no doubt the presidents of universities which are now being highlighted by the media are similarly conflicted.  They have probably made mistakes and could have done things differently.  I will get to that.  But equally important, they have been given mixed messages.  Perhaps the best example is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) whose mission statement reads, “FIRE defends and promotes the value of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture.” One way FIRE does this is rankings based on the extent to which a university adopts and implements a statement of principles originally drafted at the University of Chicago.  Of the 248 institutions included in the rankings, Harvard is #248, the University of Pennsylvania is #247 and MIT is #132.  For 10 years, FIRE chastised the administrations of these schools for supposedly suppressing free speech. 

[NOTE:  The rankings do not include the following institutions:  Hillsdale College, Liberty, Pepperdine, Brigham Young, Baylor and Saint Louis University.  What do they have in common?  All are private and have a religious affiliation.  FIRE explains their exemption as follows:

The following schools have policies that clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to freedom of speech. These colleges were excluded from the rankings and were scored relative to one another.

I guess free speech and expression are critical unless your God tells you they are not.]

Speaking of religious exemptions, one of FIRE’s celebrated causes involved student protests at Stanford University to a speech by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the U.S. Fifth District Court of Appeals.  For the record, Duncan opposed same-sex marriage, was instrumental in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores which allows corporations to exclude birth control from their health insurance plans on religious grounds and upheld Texas’ abortion ban.  All this in spite of his response to a question by Illinois senator Dick Durbin during his confirmation hearing, “Where do we draw the line with your right as an individual as opposed to my right to assert religious liberty?”  Duncan’s response?  “It’s a balance, it’s got to be a balance,” and used the Hobby Lobby case as an example, calling it a “close call because women would be deprived of contraception.” 

His rulings since confirmation have seldom acknowledged that balance.  So Stanford students yelled questions at him and booed his responses.  To which the distinguished judge said to one questioner, “You are an appalling idiot, you’re an appalling idiot.”  Were the questions and booing not free expression and Duncan’s response not an attempt to suppress that free expression?  I use this example to agree that (to use Judge Duncan’s words) there must be a balance between First Amendment rights and disruptive or threatening behavior.  However, wherever you stand on the issue, it cannot be selective.  To quote Jedi master Yoda, “Do or do not.  There is no try.”

There is one other pressure university administrations face every day.  For lack of a better term, call it “helicopter parents.”  I know from experience.  In 2005, two other Miami University faculty and I taught a summer program at our European campus.  When a student did something that we determined could result in harm to other students, we put him on the next plane home.  The next day I received a call from his father who wanted me to justify our action.  Fortunately, there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which forbids a faculty member from talking with parents without the student’s permission.  I told the father, “If your son will sign the FERPA form which gives me permission to discuss the matter with you, I will gladly tell you everything he did and why we sent him home.”  I never heard from the parent again.

That is not always the case.  At my alma mater the University of Virginia, parents of Jewish students have called for president Jim Ryan’s resignation for not sufficiently addressing the safety of Jewish students on campus.  Their grievance includes an instance where a Jewish student accused a Palestinian protester of threatening her.  The alleged perpetrator denied such behavior and filed an honor code violation accusing the Jewish student of lying.  A hearing was scheduled by the Honor Committee.  UVA has one of the most stringent honor codes at any university.  It is based on a simple proposition.  “A Virginia student will not lie, cheat or steal.”  How stringent is it?  During my time in Charlottesville a student was expelled for calling in a bomb scare.  He was expelled for LYING about the presence of a bomb.

Before the hearing took place, the Jewish parents organized to hire a lawyer to seek Ryan’s firing without realizing the Palestinian protester put himself/herself (I do not know the gender) in jeopardy by filing the honor code violation.  If the panel finds there was a threat, as reported by the Jewish student, the accuser rather than the defendant could be found guilty of lying and subject to suspension or expulsion.  I understand the Jewish parents’ concern but both students have a right to “their day in court” without parents on either side trying to delegitimize the process.

As I wrote following the infamous hearing before the House Education Committee, this is a lost opportunity for universities to do what they do best.  TEACH.  Not ideologies, partisanship or even facts.  TEACH students how to learn.  And there is a model to do that, the case method based on Socratic dialogue.  Its academic origins were rounds at medical schools.  Diagnose the patient and recommend treatment.  Medical students were encouraged to question each other and defend their own conclusions.  Soon after, case method became the standard at law schools.  And eventually migrated to business schools.

Here is how it worked in one of my entrepreneurship courses at Miami.  The case involved investment in a high risk start-up.  As a homework assignment. students analyzed the facts, choose an option and a rational for their decision.  When they walked into class, the room was divided in half.  Students who wanted to invest sat on one side, those opposing investment on the other.  I asked representatives from each side to make their case.  Then I sat back and let them verbally “duke it out.”  At the end of the discussion, I asked any student who had changed their choice to switch their seats.  Never in nine years did every student stick to their original preference, proof that fact-based debate has the power to alter and sometimes change perspectives.

Imagine a classroom where the professor presents a teaching case where the goal is peace in the Middle East.  The homework assignment is for each student to read and analyze the historical background leading up to the current situation.  Based on the facts, each student must choose a path to ending this centuries old conflict:  a two-state solution or total elimination of one of the two combatants.  Then build a fact-based case to justify their decision.  I would not be surprised to see pro-Israel and pro-Palestinians student initially intermingled on both sides of the classroom.  The discussion would be riveting.  And as I always experienced, I suspect some students would switch sides before the exercise ended.

One last thought.  The cover story on the latest issue of Forbes magazine features an exclusive report produced by staff member Emma Whitford.  “Employers Are Souring On Ivy League Grads, While These 20 ‘New Ivies’ Ascend.”  Whitford’s team interviewed HR executives from 300 of the nation’s largest corporations.  One of the employers suggested graduates of these “New Ivies” are less entitled and more productive.  This may be true but I wonder if “more productive” is not code for “they do exactly what we ask them to do.”  Having just binge-watched “The Dropout,” I could not help but wonder if Theranos would still be in business and valued at $9.0 billion, while endangering the lives of those who used its service, if Elizabeth Holmes had hired more “productive” employees from the “New Ivies” instead of Stanford graduates Erika Cheung and Tyler Schultz or British molecular biologist Ian Gibbons who received his Ph.D. at Cambridge University, the three people who blew the whistle on her scam.

POSTSCRIPT

I do appreciate the fact Forbes included both my undergraduate and graduate schools–UVA and Johns Hopkins University–among the “New Ivies,” further inflating my academic credentials.  If only they had done it while I was still in the job market.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Satanic Reverses

Culture

Disclaimer:  Today’s post includes a discussion of two writers.  Myself and Salman Rushdie.  Therefore, let me remind everyone, I know Dr. ESP.  I collaborate with Dr. ESP.  Dr. ESP, you are no Salman Rushdie.

Anyone who writes historical fiction knows, by labeling it “fiction,” writers give themselves license to create situations and dialogue to which no one except the principals have first-hand knowledge.  In many cases, the non-documented passages are needed to address unanswered questions.  As I drafted In the National Interest, there were two issues for which the public record provided no definitive explanation.  What was Lee Harvey Oswald’s motive for killing John F. Kennedy?  And was Oswald’s employment at the Texas School Book Depository, weeks before the motorcade route became public, coincidence or due to manipulation?

I was reminded of this aspect of my book while watching Jon Stewart’s interview of Salman Rushdie last night on “The Daily Show.”  In his book Knife, an account of being attacked during an August 2022 lecture at the Chautauqua Institute and the aftermath, Rushdie admits he still knows nothing about his attacker Hadi Matar’s motive other than his support for the Islamic Revolution on social media.  And despite standing outside the Chautauqua prison where Matar is being held pending trial when, while writing his book, Rushdie returned to “the scene of the crime,” he chose not to confront his attacker.  Instead, he created a Socratic dialogue which included his idea of what Matar’s legal counsel might provide as a defense in his forthcoming trial.

Again, I felt a personal kinship with Rushdie as this was the same technique I used to create both sides of the moot court arguments as my protagonist Jonathan Sheppard explores the decision to release or withhold the journal he inherited.  My self pat on the back was, however, short lived as Rushdie explained his purpose in forging this imaginary conversation with this young man who “came out of the crowd” 34 years after an Irani Ayatollah ordered a fatwa against Rushdie, following the 1988 publication of The Satanic Verses, a satirical account of the alienation and eventual assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Britain.

I had used my creative process at best to tie up loose ends in my narrative, but mostly for its entertainment value.  Rushdie had used his to try and understand why someone who was not even born at the time of the fatwa would commit a crime that would likely incarcerate him for the rest of his life.  His was a far more noble endeavor, looking for some rationale for the irrational.  Which made me rethink the value of a fictional Socratic dialogue as a means of exploring options in complex situations, especially when the actual response, in hindsight, proved unproductive.

And, being the first night of Passover, my thoughts centered on the current status of the Israel/Hamas conflict and its impact on college campuses in the United States.  On the day after the terrorist attack, international sympathy, for the most part, was clearly with the Israelis despite lingering concerns about policies affecting Palestinians promoted by the Netanyahu government. 

History tells us any nation subject to a terrorist attack has options, including, but not limited to:

  • Diplomacy
  • A targeted military response.
  • An unlimited military response.
  • Focus on internal security to prevent future attacks.
  • Establishing an anti-terror alliance to universally condemn such attacks.
  • Some combination of the above.

Only one of these six options had the potential of inverting post-October 7 sentiment towards Israel from victim to villain.  Likewise, it was Muslim students, not their Jewish classmates, who felt unsafe on college campuses in the immediate days after the vicious and inhumane Hamas attack.    As was also the case for almost unanimous Congressional support for military assistance to Israel.  Again, only one choice could dramatically change those dynamics. And yet that is the one Netanyahu and his war cabinet chose.

When Jon Stewart asked Rushdie, “How are you doing,” he told his host he feels better now than he did before the attack.  And when queried if he was apprehensive about Matar’s forthcoming trial and the possibility of being called to testify, Rushdie replied he is only a fact witness and feels no need to confront his attacker.  He then referred back to standing in the “car park” (British for parking lot) outside the Chautauqua prison.  “I am a free man outside; he is locked up inside.”

I cannot help but wonder if the Israeli government had conducted a similar Socratic process before launching their version of “shock and awe” on Gaza, would they have avoided a situation where both sides are hopelessly and indefinitely “locked up inside” prisons of their own making.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Nature v. Nurture

Culture

This century has not been kind to the American system of justice.  It has been accused of being two-tiered.  At times, it defies logic, as in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Yesterday, we learned that “law and order” is not the only American value which is applied depending on who you are, not what you do.

Case in point, Senator Tom Cotton (MAGA-Arkansas).  On May 10, 2023, Cotton introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act, which according to his accompanying press release, “protects the First Amendment rights of students at public universities from unconstitutional speech codes and so-called free speech zones.”  Among the provisions of the proposed legislation are (again from his press release):

  • Prohibit public colleges from restricting free speech and expression on campus.
  • Create a cause of action in federal court for the Attorney General or other parties to challenge restrictions on speech and expression on campus.
  • Make sure the requirements of the Act do not apply to colleges and universities controlled by religious institutions.

Okay, the First Amendment promotes free expression.  And anyone violating another’s right to free expression should be subject to due process for alleged violations.  But seriously Senator, if a student at Notre Dame University accuses the head football coach of being an overpaid incompetent, you’re okay if the Board of Trustees determines such blasphemy is punishable by suspension or expulsion.  But religious exemptions for rules that apply to everyone else is a matter for a different day.

Why?  Because yesterday the distinguished gentleman* from Arkansas took a quite different approach when it came to protesters in four U.S. cities who blocked highways to express their disapproval of what they believe is a disproportionate Israeli response to October 7 and support for a Palestinian State.

You have to get to these criminals early.  If something like this happened in Arkansas on a bridge there, let’s say there would be an awful lot of wet criminals tossed overboard, not by law enforcement, but by people whose road they were blocking.  If they glued their hands to car or pavement, well, pretty painful to have their skin ripped off, but I think that’s the way we would handle it in Arkansas.  And I’d encourage people anywhere, who get stuck behind criminals like this who are trying to block traffic, to take matters into their own hands.  It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.

Now I understand people might get upset when a protest inconveniences them.  But in the MAGA universe, peaceful protesters are “criminals,” and violent protesters on January 6th are “patriots” and “hostages.”  And where was Tom Cotton when New Jersey authorities shut down the George Washington Bridge to punish Fort Lee mayor Mike Sokolich for not supporting Governor Chris Christie’s bid for reelection?  Or when neo-Nazis blocked downtown streets in Nashville?  Or when “The People’s Convoy” blocked access to Washington, D.C. to protest COVID-19 restrictions? In other words, when Tom Cotton encourages people to attack protesters, he makes a clear distinction between “my people” and “you people.”

And so much for due process.  Cotton might as well have been one of the faux federales in John Huston’s  1927 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, “We don’t need no stinking charges.  Or stinking trials. Or stinking judges and juries.”  Just imagine if pro-Israel Christian nationalists were blocking a roadway in Dearborn, Michigan preventing the city’s large Muslim population from access to their mosque.  Does anyone believe Cotton would approve of Muslim vigilantes tossing them over the Miller-Rotunda Bridge?

All of this aside, I once again was struck by an observation by Joe Scarborough.  He prefaced his comment by acknowledging his personal friendship with Tom Cotton’s parents before adding, “I know they did not raise him to be like this.”  Based on that information, it is highly unlikely the senator’s warped perspective on American justice is attributable to familial DNA.  Which brings me back to the title of today’s post.  How many Americans, who 10 years ago would be appalled by Cotton’s call for vigilante violence, now support his message and might even participate in the equivalent of modern day lynchings?

This November was already a choice between clear alternatives.  Democracy v. Autocracy.  Allegiance to the Constitution v. Personality Cult.  National Security through Global Alliances v. Isolationism.  As someone who believes in the adage, “Children are not born with hate; someone teaches us to hate,” I now attribute a propensity toward political violence as largely a question of environment, an environment normalized by the MAGA Party.  So add one more item to the list of choices.  Due Process v. Vigilantism.  One presidential candidate calls for retribution and beating the hell out of people.  The other tells us, “We can be better than that.”

Given the choice between “Rip their skin off” or “That’s not who we are,”  I trust most Americans will eventually opt to be members of Team Better Than That.

*”Distinguished gentleman” is Congressional parlance for “son of a bitch.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Groundhog Daze

Culture, Politics

The title of today’s post is derived from waking up every morning to some unprecedented statement or action by Donald Trump which, in a different environment, would disqualify any other candidate for president of the United States.  I call it the “All You Need to Know” syndrome.  This morning there are more examples to add to the list.

Last night, at what the Washington Post called a “historic” event, two ex-presidents joined the incumbent at a Radio City Music Hall, star-studded gala that raised a record $26 million dollars in support of Joe Biden’s re-election and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.  There were three takeaways from this event, two of which are being widely reported.

#1.  This morning, Jamie Harrison, chairman of the Democratic National Committee pointed out “every penny is being spent on opening field offices to register new voters and to make sure they show up on election day.” He felt no need to explicitly add, “In contrast to the Republican National Committee…”  This is one case where, by simply reporting facts about the Trump takeover of the RNC and the distribution of “campaign” donations, print and broadcast news is carrying this water for the Biden campaign.

#2. Mark Leibovich, staff writer at The Atlantic, reminded “Morning Joe” viewers that “while Biden was flanked by the two living, two-term, former Democratic presidents, Donald Trump stands alone on the stage.”  In other words, do not hold your breath waiting for a GOP fundraiser featuring Trump and George W. Bush.  Scarborough jumped in and added, neither would you see a former Republican vice-president (including Trump’s own), presidential nominee or vice-presidential nominee, with of course the exception of Sarah Palin.  Leibovich added two more categories to the list, former Speakers of the House John Boehner and Paul Ryan or soon to be former Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  In this game of “Can You Top This,” Scarborough completed the tabulation with Trump’s three secretaries of defense, two secretaries of state, first two chiefs of staff, etc.

The one that everyone missed, which in hindsight may prove to be the most important, was the pro-Palestinian protests outside the event and an interruption of Biden’s and Barack Obama’s comments about the Israel/Gaza conflict.  This “all you need to know” moment required an observer to read between the lines.  It seems Palestinian sympathizers have regularly appeared at almost every Democratic rally or event since the beginning of primary season.  On January 31, Ed Pilkington of The Guardian reported, “This month all of Biden’s big set-piece speeches marking the launch of his re-election campaign have been disrupted by pro-Palestinian protests.”  To be fair, the same did happen at one Nikki Haley rally.  On February 1, Filip Timotija of The Hill led his coverage of a Haley event with the following.  “A small group of protesters interrupted the former governor’s campaign event in Columbia, S.C., with chants of “Free, Free Palestine,” before some of them were escorted out of the event.” 

However, when I Goggled, “pro-Palestinian protests at Trump events,” the search produced more articles about last night’s fundraiser or other confrontations with Biden or his surrogates.  At the bottom of the web page, there was a report attributed to New Hampshire Public Radio about protesters outside a Trump appearance at the University of New Hampshire.  The demonstration was organized by UNH’s Palestinian Solidarity Group which implored both Biden and Trump to end what they believe to be “genocide” of Palestinian civilians.  When asked why she was there, protest organizer Adeena Ahsan, a UNH graduate student told NHPR reporter Sarah Gibson “they weren’t just protesting the current and former presidents’ foreign policy positions. They also wanted to push back on their school’s decision to give Trump a platform.”  She added, “We think it’s insane that we are paying for this, not the city of Durham, not Trump’s campaign up front — our tuition is going towards this.”

There may be a lot of reasons Palestinian supporters do not have the same presence at Trump or GOP rallies as similar Democratic events.  Maybe, they believe that Biden, the current president, can do more for their cause than a mere candidate.  Maybe, they think the Biden administration is more receptive to their concerns about a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  But there is one more big difference, which is all you need to know.

When the protesters interrupted President Biden at last night’s Radio City Music Hall event, he replied, “That’s alright, let them go. … there are too many innocent victims, Israeli and Palestinian.”  Obama used the disruption as a teaching moment about the job of being president.

One of the realities of the presidency is that the world has a lot of joy and beauty, but it also has a lot of tragedy and cruelty,  I think people understandably oftentimes want to feel a certain surety in terms of how those decisions are made. But a president doesn’t have that luxury.

When he was again interrupted, Obama drew the comparison that exemplifies the choice we have this November.

No, no listen. You can’t just talk and not listen. … That’s what the other side does. And it is possible for us to understand that it is possible to have moral clarity and have deeply held beliefs, but still recognize that the world is complicated and it is hard to solve these problems.

We do not have to imagine how Trump would respond to these protesters.  We have his record.  “Can’t you just shoot them?  Just shoot them in the legs or something?” he asked former Defense Secretary Mark Esper on the occasion of Black Lives Matters protests in front of the White House.  In July 2017, in a speech to Long Island law enforcement officials, Trump said, “Please don’t be too nice,” implying he approved of roughing up suspects during arrests.  In August 2020 he considered sending the National Guard to Portland, Oregon to quell protests, stating, “We could fix Portland in, I would say, 45 minutes.”

Why do Palestinian supporters show up at Democratic and not Republican events?  They know they may be removed from the venue or lectured to by a former president.  They also know they will leave the event alive and unharmed.  Would they be as sure of that same outcome at a Trump rally when he is only a candidate?  Do they think a negative outcome will be less likely if he once again controls the departments of defense, homeland security and justice?  That is all they need to remember when they vote this fall.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP