TRUMP: "...a moral failure in a badly tailored suit, a narcissist who mistakes domination for leadership and spectacle for subtance."

 

It's always a pleasure to read a post by Michael Jochum.

There is something uniquely offensive about watching a man with the aesthetic sensibilities of a casino arsonist wander through America’s civic inheritance like a drunk landlord with a demolition permit.

Today, Donald Trump apparently referred to the Reflecting Pool as a “reflecting lake” that he’s going to make “waterproof,” which is such a perfectly Trumpian phrase it almost reads like satire. Waterproof. As opposed to what, Donald? The famously leaky body of water? The concept itself tells you everything. A man so intellectually incurious, so monumentally ignorant, so allergic to history and nuance, that he treats national landmarks the way a mediocre property developer treats a tired golf resort. Rip it out. Rename it. Slap gold trim on it. Pretend improvement has occurred.

The Reflecting Pool is not some neglected feature outside a failing Mar-a-Lago annex. It sits in the shadow of Lincoln, a solemn axis of memory, sacrifice, protest, and national reckoning. It has reflected marches for civil rights, antiwar demonstrations, presidential memorials, grief, hope, and moments of actual American greatness. But to Trump, history is only valuable if his reflection appears in it.

So now, apparently, it’s a swamp. Fitting, really. Because everything this man touches eventually becomes one.

That’s the pattern, isn’t it? Institutions. Norms. Alliances. Language itself. He doesn’t build nearly as much as he brands, degrades, or repurposes for ego consumption. He treats democracy like a licensing opportunity. The presidency, to him, has never been public service. It’s been the ultimate vanity acquisition.

And yes, billionaires adore him, not because he represents strength, patriotism, or some mythical business genius, but because he functions exactly as intended: a tax shelter with vocal cords. He enriches the already grotesquely wealthy while selling working Americans a fantasy wrapped in grievance, flags, and manufactured enemies. The poor? Disposable. The vulnerable? Weakness to be mocked. The “unchosen,” as you so aptly frame it? Collateral damage in the prosperity gospel fever dream of Christian nationalism and oligarchic greed.

Which brings us to the real cruelty. Because cruelty is the point. Not accidental cruelty. Not unfortunate side effects. Deliberate cruelty. Toward immigrants. Toward political opponents. Toward the sick. Toward the poor. Toward women. Toward institutions that dared suggest accountability applies to him. Toward the memory of former administrations whose greatest offense was governing without worshipping him.

Even our monuments aren’t spared. Everything must be dragged into his orbit, rebranded in vulgarity, diminished by contact. He is not a steward of American history. He is its vandal.

And what exhausts me most is not even Trump himself anymore. It’s the endless chorus of enablers who continue to clap like trained seals while the furniture burns. Men in expensive suits. Cable news opportunists. Christian nationalists singing Onward, Christian Soldiers while kneeling before a man who embodies none of the values they pretend to defend. Billionaires congratulating themselves at private dinners while families wonder how to pay for groceries, rent, prescriptions, or another obscene tank of gas.

Donald Trump is not merely an embarrassment. He is a moral failure in a badly tailored suit, a narcissist who mistakes domination for leadership and spectacle for substance.

And when this chapter finally ends, and it will end, one way or another, history will not be kind to those who mistook this grotesque parade of ego, greed, and cruelty for patriotism.

Michael Jochum

Author of Not Just a Drummer: Reflections on Art, Politics, Dogs, and the Human Condition

Veteran drummer, writer, observer of the absurd, and still foolish enough to believe truth matters.

TRUMP: "Because in my world, loyalty outranks law."

 

CORRECTION:

When I posted this yesterday, I looked on the web and found the above quote in several publications. Dave Dubya brought to my attention in the comments that he could not find the quote anywhere. I  looked again today and found that Trump did not say those exact words, so the quote is not authentic.

I checked SNOPES and found this:

Many of the posts online included a clip apparently of Trump answering the reporter's question, thus implying Trump answered by saying, "Loyalty outranks law." That clip is from a real May 18, 2026, news conference with Trump, and the reporter did, in fact, ask him about the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund. However, Trump did not actually say the specific words shared by social media users. 

As such, we have rated this quote as an incorrect attribution. 

This is the actual exchange documented by SNOPES:

LANDERS: The Justice Department has this new fund that was announced today, $1.7 billion. Why should taxpayers pay for the January 6ers? 

TRUMP: It's being very well-received, I have to tell you. I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in the whole creation of it, and the negotiation. But this is reimbursing people who were horribly treated, horribly treated. 

It's anti-weaponization, they've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly. They've paid legal fees that they didn't have, they've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed. And they turned out to be right. I mean, it's, it was a terrible period of time in the history of our country, and they worked on it. I know the Justice Department has really been working on it very hard. 

There's been numerous other occasions over the years where things like this have been done. But these were people that were weaponized and really treated brutally by a system that was so corrupt, with corrupt people running it. And they're getting reimbursed for their legal fees and the other things that they had to suffer. 

I was mistaken when I posted the quote. I should have been more careful with researching its validity. Trump has always valued loyalty above all else, and there are many quotes where he expresses his admiration and loyalty to those who praise and support him without question. That's why I believed this inaccurate report.

I regret the error.

When a reporter asked why taxpayers should cover the costs of a $1.7 billion DOJ fund for January 6th defendants, Donald Trump responded: "Because in my world, loyalty outranks law. They broke the rules for me, so you pay the bill for them. That's the transaction."

Yes, Trump, the POTUS, actually said those words. And millions of Americans heard them.

Trump told us that he cares nothing for the Constitution nor the rule of law.  Loyalty, above all else, is what Trump esteems. 

A U.S. President swears a specific constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Through this oath, the President takes on the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This responsibility is outlined in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which directs the President to ensure all federal laws are properly enforced.

Trump's language today as he spoke those words in the title of this post is the language of a mob boss, not a POTUS who swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

As long as this criminal sits in the Oval Office, expect more criminality and disregard for law and order. 

Donald Trump has told us in plain mobster language what is important to him: loyalty. And that loyalty "outranks the law."

This attitude underpins his reasoning for seeking reparations in the billions of dollars for the men and women who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and who were found guilty of felonies by a jury of their peers. 

Donald Trump has pardoned those criminals and now will take your tax money and give it to them in service to him and for breaking the law.

I'm not surprised to see this happen. Trump, after all, is a convicted felon and adjudicated sexual assaulter/rapist, liar, cheat, and fraudster. Did anyone with half a brain expect excellence in the office of the presidency from someone with that rap sheet? 

As someone on the internet said, I do not think Americans understand how insane this is. Trump is openly describing the country as a patronage network where crimes committed in service to the leader become obligations absorbed by the public. 

This is the language of a man who thinks the state belongs to him personally.

Richard Stengel:

"An American president sues/extorts his own government, then settles with his own justice department to funnel taxpayers' money to his criminal allies. Trump will go down in history as the president who came up with forms of corruption never contemplated before."

David Rothkopf:

"Trump did not reach a settlement with the government. There was no case to settle. He has not created a slush fund. He has colluded with Todd Blanche to steal money from the US Treasury. This is not a "deal." This is a crime for which Trump & Blanche must be prosecuted. It is a crime."

Stay tuned for more corruption: Trump's corrupt stock trading while president. Even Wall Street is appalled.

GUEST POST BY DAVE MILLER

 

Why America Keeps Winning Wars and Losing Countries

1979 — Iranian Hostage Rescue — Failure — Carter
1983 — Grenada Invasion — Success — Reagan
1986 — Libya Bombing — Mixed — Reagan
1989 — Panama Invasion — Success — Bush I
1990–91 — First Gulf War — Success — Bush I
1993 — Somalia / U.N. Intervention — Failure — Clinton
1995–99 — Bosnia / Kosovo Intervention — Success — Clinton
2001 — Afghanistan War — Failure — Bush II
2003 — Iraq War — Failure — Bush II
2011 — Libya Intervention — Failure — Obama

Current / Still Developing Operations:

2026 — Venezuela Intervention — Too Early to Judge — Trump
2026 — Iran Conflict — Mixed / Still Unfolding — Trump

If we analyze ten major U.S. military operations from 1979 through 2011, several patterns begin to emerge.

Four are generally viewed as clear failures.
Four are widely seen as successful.
One produced mixed results.
And one, depending on perspective, still remains debated.

For the sake of clarity, I’ve separated the current Venezuela and Iran conflicts from the historical list because both are still unfolding and their long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

Now let’s break the earlier operations down further.

Of the four clearest failures, three came under Democratic presidents. Notably, those failures were largely tactical, peacekeeping, or humanitarian-style interventions rather than conventional wars in the traditional sense. By contrast, the two large-scale modern war failures most Americans think of — Iraq and Afghanistan — were initiated under Republican leadership.

Looking at the broader list, several trends appear.

1. Democratic presidents have more often struggled in limited military or humanitarian interventions.
2. Republican presidents have overseen America’s most significant modern conventional war failures.
3. President George H. W. Bush stands out as a clear outlier.

Perhaps there is a reason Bush I avoided a major military failure during his presidency.

Some might call it luck. But perhaps it was experience.

Bush was the only elected president since 1980 with direct combat experience. He was the only president of that era to have lived overseas in an official U.S. government role. He served diplomatically as ambassador to the United Nations and later as envoy to China. He also led the CIA.

That combination mattered.

Bush’s experience inside both the military and diplomatic worlds, including service as a decorated WWII naval aviator, gave him a strong understanding of both the reach and the limits of American power. He understood that while the United States could win militarily almost anywhere on earth, lasting victory required diplomacy, coalition-building, and political clarity.

President Trump and many of his supporters have sharply criticized America’s allies for failing to fully support the current Iran conflict. But did Trump do the difficult diplomatic work necessary to bring those allies onboard before military action began, as Bush did before the First Gulf War?

The answer appears to be no.

In 1975, before the fall of Saigon, U.S. Colonel Harry "Champ" Summers reportedly told North Vietnamese Colonel Nguyễn Đôn Tu, “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield.”

The Vietnamese officer is said to have replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

That exchange still haunts American foreign policy.

When the United States commits fully to a military operation — Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, or Venezuela — it does so with overwhelming firepower. Tactical defeat on the battlefield is rare. Yes, soldiers die, mistakes happen, and disasters occasionally occur, as they did during the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission in the desert.

But generally speaking, America wins the war.

The greater challenge comes afterward.

As in Vietnam and much of the Middle East, America often struggles not with winning wars, but with winning the peace.

Venezuela and Iran may eventually fit this historical pattern, but it is still too early to classify either with confidence. Venezuela may ultimately look like a tactical success, but the deeper question is whether the aftermath can be stabilized politically and economically. Iran is even harder to judge because the stated objectives and strategic endgame continue to evolve.

Perhaps what America needs are more leaders shaped by military service, diplomacy, and strategic restraint... and fewer leaders shaped primarily by celebrity and media culture.

YOUR SUNDAY MOMENT OF ZEN

 

SATURDAY NIGHT MUSIC