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

 

The Thucydides Trap

 May 15, 2026 (Friday)

“Yesterday in Beijing, the President of China told the President of the United States to his face that America is the falling power.

He used a phrase out of Thucydides (the Athenian general who lived through Athens losing to Sparta and spent his exile writing down why). President Xi Jinping invoked the Thucydides Trap on camera. He was telling Donald Trump that the United States is the ruling power on the way down.

From the suite they put him in after the welcome ceremony, Trump posted on Truth Social. The post said the United States is the hottest Nation anywhere in the world. It said Xi must have meant Sleepy Joe Biden. It said Xi congratulated him.

A man somewhere in America is reading the post on his phone.

He reads it twice.

He scrolls to the replies. Someone has typed that declining is the present participle of decline. Someone else has typed that being is a present participle. A third has typed wouldn’t it be declined, past tense then? Three civilians in a comment section, unprompted, doing English grammar in public to a sitting president.

Further down, someone has written: Confucius says, when enemies congratulate you, it’s not a compliment.

Further down still, someone has written: We’re fortunate this will be archived as part of our nation’s history. Future generations need to learn from this.

The man sets the phone face down on the counter.

The post was meant to save face. The room knew. The cameras knew. The Chinese press knew.

The Chinese press has a nickname for him. Chuan Jianguo. Trump the Nation-Builder. The nation he is building, they say, is theirs.

Three hundred Chinese schoolchildren waved paper flowers. Trump told the officials the children were beautiful. Musk sat alone at the banquet table while Chinese executives took turns dropping into the empty seat beside him for photos, his face cycling through grimace and indifference and ham. The clips have been watched eleven million times.

Back home, artificial intelligence was replacing eight hundred and sixty-four American tech workers a day, work those same companies had flown across the Pacific to expand.

Behind the president stood the American oligarchy while Xi said it. A dozen chief executives. Combined personal wealth over a trillion dollars. Apple. Tesla. Nvidia. BlackRock. Blackstone. Boeing. Goldman Sachs. Citigroup. Never before had so much American capital landed on Chinese soil at once. They had flown to Beijing to make deals inside the decline Xi had just named.

Athens in the fifth century before Christ. Whitewashed houses stepped down to the harbor. Olive groves on every hillside above the city. Goats on the slopes. Smoke from the cookfires drifting up to the Parthenon. The most dazzling democracy in the Mediterranean. A naval empire. The city other cities measured themselves against. It went to war with Sparta and lost.

The real cause of the war, Thucydides wrote, was the one nobody wanted to name. The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon, made war inevitable. A rising power. A ruling power. The collision.

He also wrote how Athens lost its soul before it lost the war.

In Book Five, Thucydides records Melos. An island in the Aegean refused to submit to Athenian rule. Envoys arrived with ships. The Melians appealed to fairness, to the gods, to the idea that small powers deserved to live. Back came a sentence that has survived twenty-four hundred years because it was useful. Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. They killed the Melian men, sold the women and children into slavery, and sailed home.

Within a generation, the Spartans took the city, their fleet built with Persian gold. The walls came down, the navy was reduced to twelve ships, tribute stopped, democracy ended. A council of thirty wealthy men ruled in its place. Athens kept existing as a place. It stopped existing as the power it had been.

Athenian politicians spoke on the way down. They named the markets and named the navy and named the tribute, listed the victories, told the audience, in the very moment that audience could have walked outside and seen the empty granaries and the warships rotting at anchor, that the city was at its height. They were eloquent. They were wrong.

In 1987, a book called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers appeared, a title that now sounds like the sort of premise you find in a thrift-store paperback, and which contained, forty years ago, the entire argument we are watching arrive on a tarmac. It compared the United States directly to Imperial Spain around 1600 and the British Empire around 1900. It named the disease that killed them. Imperial overstretch. The sum total of an empire’s global commitments becomes far larger than its power to defend them. The book named the rising power that would benefit. China.

We did not read the book.

Look at what the country is funding.

The Golden Dome, a missile shield Trump promised would cost $175 billion, is now estimated at $1.2 trillion. Bloomberg says it would still likely fail against a peer adversary. A trillion dollars for a fantasy of safety.

Four hundred new data centers are going up to run the artificial intelligence replacing American workers. They drink water as they run. In Texas, past the cooling stacks outside Abilene, past the Microsoft build in San Antonio, past the new Meta site in Temple, past the OpenAI installation that was pasture land in 2023, those facilities used forty-nine billion gallons last year.

Texas just told its own residents they need $174 billion to avoid a water crisis. The same state is building 400 data centers.

Look at what the country will not fund.

Healthcare. Childcare. Paid leave. The price of insulin. A federal minimum wage frozen since 2009. The cashier watching you put the gum back. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index at an all-time low, structural breakdown, the survey itself calls it, in how Americans now see the economy.

Pundits call it a mood. A 2014 study examined seventeen hundred and seventy-nine federal policy outcomes over twenty years and found that the preferences of average American voters had a near-zero, statistically non-significant impact on what their government did. To conclude that the preferences of economic elites had a substantial impact is, needless to say, an understatement.

The men on the plane cut roughly a thousand American jobs a day in 2026 and called it efficiency. Balance sheets, stock prices, personal wealth, all at records. Near zero is what the rest of the country is worth to them as a constituency.

The Iran campaign cost a billion dollars a day. The war on terror cost roughly eight trillion over twenty-five years. The Belt and Road Initiative, China’s twenty-five-year project, the slow patient unglamorous work of building ports and rail and fiber across Asia and Africa and Latin America, has cost about one trillion. Their map filled with infrastructure. Ours filled with rubble and arms contracts.

Trump confessed it on Fox. That’s why they came. China’s going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars with those people that were in that room today.

Boeing’s stock fell four percent on the news that China would graciously buy 200 of its planes. Three hundred fewer than industry sources had expected. Exactly enough to let the president report a victory. The country has gotten smaller every time he has made the trip.

Xi spent the summit speaking the language of patience, touring Trump through the gardens at Zhongnanhai; promising to send him seeds for the roses; invoking Thucydides on camera; telling the American president that a new bilateral relationship of constructive strategic stability had been established.

He did not need to threaten anything.

Trump praised the choreography.

The gas hit $4.53 this week. You are doing the calculations at the pump. The numbers are the numbers of an empire that funds aircraft carriers and refuses to fund the safety net. We have to take care of one thing: military protection, the president has said. The structure has chosen. It chose long ago.

The Michigan number is the country reporting back the symptoms. The premium notice in your inbox is the country reporting back the symptoms. The eight hundred and sixty-four tech workers a day are the country reporting back the symptoms. The reservoirs at nine percent are the country reporting back the symptoms.

Decline as we are living it is visible everywhere, in the friend who moved abroad and seems happier, the slow shrinkage of what people expect from the country they were born in, the quiet calculation about which institution will fail next and whether one has the energy to care, the screen flickering with news that arrives and is absorbed and changes nothing. The country is showing signs of premature aging, no matter how sprightly they say the markets are.

Xi said it on camera. Thucydides wrote it in 411 BC. The book on the thrift-store shelf wrote it in 1987.

Sparta did not take Athens alone. Persia paid for the fleet. The countries that used to need us are flying to Beijing now. The Athenians did not believe they would fall either. Until the ships arrived.”—Jermaine Fowler