New York Times Reports that Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Donald Trump, is detailing what she witnessed during the Capitol attack at the Jan. 6 hearing, including the former president trying to steer his limo to the Capitol
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Donald Trump, is detailing what she witnessed during the Capitol attack at the Jan. 6 hearing, including the former president trying to steer his limo to the Capitol. https://t.co/INkZe0YfT2 pic.twitter.com/6tQucrgHJR
— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 28, 2022
EDIT: Eagle-Eyed Commenter J R points out that the above tweet has been deleted by the NYT.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, provided the Jan. 6 committee with her account of what Donald Trump and his top advisers were doing and saying as the attack unfolded. Here is a timeline of the key moments she described in her testimony. https://t.co/roRSB1tC6W
— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 29, 2022
She has destroyed her career in the political arena to save the nation.
That’s courage.Report
So time to yell about hillary i guess.Report
Tired: But her e-mails
Wired: Gas prices and pronounsReport
I would recommend putting more effort into doing something about gas prices than in shaming the people who complain about them.
“Just take public transportation!” won’t work for the people who live in neither San Fransico nor Brooklyn. (“Buy an electric vehicle” is slightly better, but not by much, and it doesn’t get you into the “good” column yet.)
Honestly, “Abortion” is probably your best bet. You’re going to have no shortage of Akins. Focus on them and not on gas prices.Report
The trouble of course is that there is nothing to be done about fuel prices, even if we got a bunch of extra crude from somewhere, refining capacity is really tight right now. Eventually capacity will build up, but no matter how many executive orders Biden issues, you won’t be able to make an oil refinery out of them.Report
Now James, you can’t go spoiling all the fun like that with mere facts.Report
Then, definitely, do abortion instead of gas prices.
Mocking people for not understanding that refining capacity is at its limit is not going to win a single vote.Report
James isn’t mocking people who don’t understand. If he’s mocking anyone, he’s mocking the people who do understand and prey on the lack of understanding. Now who might be in that group?Report
I am actively *NOT* preying on it.
I’m looking at people mocking the concern over the high price of gas and saying “That is not how you want to play the hand you’ve been dealt”.
I am actively saying “Play the abortion card instead.”
Now if you want to say that it’s more than possible to sensitively mock concern about gas prices (“buy a *USED* electric car!”), best of luck.
But I don’t think it’ll grab you a single voter and will, instead, alienate people who might otherwise be inclined to vote for Democrats.
But it will signal in-group membership. So if signaling in-group membership is the main thing that you’re going for, I imagine that mocking concern over gas prices will do a bang-up job of doing that.Report
I’ll leave to others whether they should believe you. After all, you’ve done this before.Report
I’ll let them scroll up and see where I said:
And then:
Because I think that going into a deep dive of oil refinement theory is going to be a mistake.
For one thing, you’re going to have the eternal problem of the disciplined people arguing “but this isn’t true” and the undisciplined people piping up “BUT IT’S GOOD THOUGH” and having to deal with that. Plus there is a *LOT* of Biden footage out there to take out of context.
Just go with Abortion. Whenever an Akin pops up, point out that he’s representative of everybody on the Pro-Life side.
Seriously. This should be a gimme.Report
I imagine that this testimony will result in a handful of people being indicted (I don’t know that Trump will be among them).
I wish that this testimony had surfaced during the impeachment.
(Maybe there’s room for a third impeachment for over the summer?)Report
Sounds like Trump could be indicted for assaulting a federal law enforcement officer if nothing else.
As to the impeachment – I suspect she was part of the vast army of people who felt they couldn’t testify at the second impeachment. Or she was told by Meadows not to. Either way her testimony now makes a world of difference, and I hope she continues to cooperate.Report
Eh, there’s the “in theory” and there’s the “in actuality”.
Indicting a former president is one hell of a precedent. EVEN IF HE ABSOLUTELY DESERVES IT.
I think that impeaching him and then letting the post-impeachment trail off into procedural issues and fizzle out is probably the best play in that it will neuter Trump politically without setting the precedent that an indictment would set. (But he might still command large crowds for any given speech.)
We need to figure out a way to have him withdraw from public life and STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS ENTIRELY.
Maybe give him The Apprentice back?Report
Well, Popehat thinks it’s enough for an indictment. Gotta defer to his expertise.
Report
We know we have reached the Event Horizon when Popehat tells us it’s enough for a RICO indictment.Report
That’s like House saying “Yup, lupus.”Report
Lol. Not RICO, lets save Ken’s poor mind from more of that. Just Incitement to riot/break the law.Report
I’m not sure this isn’t more “because Trump” reasoning.
Other states and protests have had armed protesters. In this account, Trump is concerned his crowd will looks small (not full) and has zero concern about him being hurt with their weapons because they’re not there to hurt him.
I don’t see how we go from that to “incitement”.Report
And how do we stop his acolytes? He’s just the first one who tried this approach. He won’t be the last, and absent a criminal conviction they will use these hearings as a roadmap for a smarter coup next time.Report
My best suggestion involves “making sure the trains run on time” before doing anything grand or sweeping.
But, you know how it is. Hoarders, wreckers. That sort of thing.Report
Making the trains run on time is how fascists and authoritarians gain power.Report
Yeah.
That’s why it’s important to not let those services degrade.
You’d hate to be nocked down to “2nd Best Choice”. Or 3rd. Or 4th. OrReport
The normal politicals screw up so badly that anything looks better.
Germany in the 1940’s was because of hyper inflation in the 20’s/30’s.Report
FWIW, fascists don’t actually make the trains run on time, and never have. One of the signatures of repressive regimes is that nothing works and everything’s broken.
And the fascist supporters don’t even care about trains running on time and never have.
Fascists gain power by convincing people to turn on each other, to fear and hate each other.
They spread lies about immigrants, about sexual perverts, they fan the flames of male insecurity about their status with regards to women and children. They claim to speak in the name of God and cast other people as demonic.
People like to paint history as a series of inevitable causations:: This happened then inevitably this followed.
But that’s incorrect- every decision made by individuals and groups has an infinite number of choices that were considered and discarded.
Virtually every nation in the industrialized world experienced economic calamity in the 1930s but only a handful turned to fascism.
Right now, America is facing a series of choices. Regardless of what happens with the economy, the choice we make in November is something we choose to do of our own free will, and there won’t be any excuse of “B-but gas prices!!”.
If people make the wrong choice, its because they really wanted it.Report
The economic calamity in the 1930s is a story of a bad economic mess turned into a horrific economic mess via government mismanagement.
That opened doors. Not every door was open to the same degree and not every door had fascism go through.Report
My grandfather told stories from the Depression in rural Iowa where the Nazi party got a respectful hearing about their violent revolution plans one week at the Grange Hall, and the Communists got an equally respectful hearing about their violent revolution plans the next week.
FDR sent people he trusted out to do quiet tours of different parts of the country to get a feel for how the people felt. Whoever it was that was sent to the prairie/plains states came back and said that armed revolt was a very real possibility. It wasn’t just the Depression; rural America had spent the entire 1920s in a serious recession.Report
Yes, that. We came closer than we normally like to think.
Think Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. The first two thirds are how bad things suck for the lower classes, the last third is how great Communism will be.
There was a ton of governmental policy that was NOT understood for it’s effects or implications. A ton of experimentation was done and various policies were new.
When I blame the political class I’m being more than a little unfair. Communism / Fascism’s moral bankruptcy wasn’t well understood, even by the so called experts.
FDR tried a ton of stuff, some of it probably saved the country. Some of it prolonged the Depression.Report
Congress seems to be under the deeply mistaken impression that you can only impeach people while they’re in office, despite the facts that one of only two possible of the punishments of impeachment is disqualifying them from ever holding office again.
Or, rather they have started lying that they’re under that impression and the media has not called them on that. Which is an amazingly common thing to happen, politicians telling blatant lies about obvious history and not getting called on it. But anyway, offtopic.
In actual reality, every time a ‘disqualification’ has been issued by the Senate (Three times in history), it has happened immediately _after_ the vote to remove that person from office, and hence technically speaking, the person wasn’t in office at the time, they were _instantly_ removed when the Senate said ‘They’re out’, and then the other vote happened! Clearly you can disqualify someone from office who isn’t currently in one, which means you can certainly _impeach_ them to get to said disqualification vote.
Also, there’s no such thing as double jeopardy there. The House can keep impeaching him over and over for the exact same act…because all impeachment really is (Although we forget), is the right for the Senate to hold a trial.
That said…the Senate is certainly not going to vote to disqualify him.
The real question is whether an impeachment circus would help or hurt the Dems…honestly, I think it could, because Republicans would start asserting ‘You can’t do that’, making the focus on technicalities and ignoring the ‘Trump actively tried to get people killed at the Capitol’, which might actually get out there.Report
You’re going to give the ringmaster a circus and expect it will hurt him?
Focus on arresting and putting prison the people that you can actually arrest and put in prison. If that’s two (+plus) levels below Trump then it is what it is. If that’s one level then even better.
Most people don’t insulate themselves to the degree Trump does. Certainly the rioters didn’t. Treat all of this like a normal criminal matter and apply the usual rules.Report
Yes, but Congress is not in charge of putting people into jail.
The question is ‘Does having another set of impeachment based on what this committee is telling us help or hurt the Dems?’.
I am tempted to say no, if only because the hearings themselves are bringing up all this, and it doesn’t have to be structured like impeachment, so is working a lot better.
But it’s something that should still be on the table.
Although you did sorta bring up an interesting question, and a point that should have been made a long time ago: Quite a lot of people _around_ a president end up committing quite obvious crimes and doing blatantly unethical stuff, and it would be _really_ nice if we’d impeach them, also.
Like, President Trump pardoned a bunch of his close associates and we can’t do anything about that, I guess…but we _could_ impeach a bunch of them and disqualify them from office and say ‘Yeah, you are not allowed near politics again.’
…well, we could if the Senate will do it…although interestingly the Senate seems to think that, while removal from office requires a 2/3 majority, _disqualification_ only requires a simple majority. (Because the threshold for _that_ part is not stated in the Constitution.)
And, even more fun, referrals for impeachment can’t be filibustered.
Yeah, that’s right, under current constitutional theory, if all the Dems voted to disqualify Trump via impeachment and conviction, he could indeed, right now, be disqualified from holding public office.
The problem, of course, is that enough Dems don’t want to do this that they will _pretend_ they don’t know any of this or that something must be wrong with that.
…and I mean, honestly, I’m not sure we want to start that precedent, where a simple majority of both houses can bar someone from office. That does seem to be the correct interpretation of the constitution, but it is an _exceptionally_ stupid thing to start doing, because it would mean any same-party Congress could randomly disqualify whoever was running for President…hell, they could technically do that after the electoral college votes, disqualify both the Prez and VP before they take office, so slip in the Speaker of the House come Jan 20th.
The constitution is stupid and was written by idiots, and we _desperately_ need to fix it. Seriously, it is very poorly made, parliamentary systems work so much better and the reason we didn’t do that is basically ‘We’re going to not be the English!’Report
“The constitution is stupid and was written by idiots, and we _desperately_ need to fix it.”
…said the Republican in 1983 wondering why we couldn’t just shoot all those homosexual drug dealers.Report
“The constitution is stupid and was written by idiots, and we _desperately_ need to fix it.”
Said the guys in 1787 who wrote the Articles of Confederation, then later changed their minds and tore it all up and re-wrote it to make it better.
I’m seeing a lot of comments about how, in reaction to a SCOTUS ruling, Congress needs to be “more assertive” and regain power and take their Constitutional powers more seriously.
And also a recoiling in horror when such a thing is actually suggested, like adding more justices or adding states, both of which have happened before without ending the republic.
We forget how radical and bold the Founders were and how willing they were to take drastic action even to the point of amending or even scrapping the entire Constitution when they felt it necessary.Report
There is a vast difference between “the system isn’t working” and “my team needs to win”.
If you want big changes, then ask yourself if you’d be cool with the other side doing them.
Making PR a state? Probably you’d be fine with that.
Adding new Supremes? Probably you wouldn’t be ok with the GOP being the ones to do that.Report
I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of adding new justices.
I would be opposed to making them conservative justices.
I wouldn’t hide my opposition behind spurious appeals to some abstract principle which amounts to “Congress should not exercise the power explicitly given to it by the Constitution because my team needs to win and I don’t want to admit that.”Report
Things that are obviously wrong in how the Constitution operates:
Almost everything to do with elections and terms of office of elected officials, which dates back to a time when communications and travel was very slow _and_ has had several new things hacked in that don’t work well.
Impeachment and removal from office, which is a functionally absurd process in the modern day and cannot work. We _have_ tried to fix this with the 25th…we did not manage it.
The Supreme Court being for life instead of single term of 8 years or so.
Lack of any sort of referendum or recall system.
The constitutional amendment process itself and the unclear status of when one passed. (You people are aware that the ERA has actually passed under current understanding, but we’re all pretending it hasn’t, right? You can’t withdraw radification, and you can’t put time limits on it, ergo, the ERA has passed as the 28th amendment.)
And, again, the very structure of the executive branch vs. the legislative, instead of using the much more functional parliamentary system, which is actually the cause of a lot of issues that people don’t realize other countries don’t deal with.
For example, countries with a parliamentary system don’t have to ‘delegate’ things to the executive to get them to set up regulations…they just create that agency under themselves. There has been so much legal nonsense over the decade of ‘What did Congress authorize here’ that magically just vanishes if Congress is the entity actually in charge.Report
Just because idiots don’t like the rules does not, in fact, mean the rules are good.
And it’s kinda weird how everyone went right to ‘rights’. I actually wasn’t talking about those. I mean, they’re writing very poorly also and extremely weird interpretations that, if we’re going to use, probably should be a lot more explicit, but…not what I was talking about.
The Constitution is very badly written as merely a system of governance. There are weird loopholes in it, there are assumptions written in that we’ve moved past but still have to deal with and the system it has created simply doesn’t work well at all.
For example, the delay between votes and taking office is WAY too long, and as people have known for a while, is a pretty bad thing as not only does it make the government even less responsive, but it allows, uh, the planning of coups by the existing government unwilling to turn over power. Huh, whoops.
Fun fact: The Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House, possibly because they just literally forget to write that in. Not _only_ is that absurd in and of itself, but we then went and put them third in line for the presidency, which allows all sorts of crazy trickery with EC vote counting….all the House has to do is stop anyone from becoming president by Jan 20th, and, tada, they get to pick them.
Even when we try to fix stuff, we…don’t. The 25th amendment has a provision for an independent group appointed by Congress to watch over the president’s fitness for office…and we never bothered to set that up, leaving it in the hands of the Cabinet, who of course can be removed by the president if they start talking about doing that.
And, like I said, having an elected leader of an independent executive is actually a really stupid idea vs. a parliamentary system.
I’m not actually trying to talk about ‘What rights should be in the constitution, that is a real debate that is possibly worth having, but here I’m just talking about broken mechanical stuff in the base rules.Report
“Just because idiots don’t like the rules does not, in fact, mean the rules are good.”
…you do realize I was responding to your comment about how you didn’t like the rules, right?Report
And I was responding to _your_ comment about how ‘Republicans in 1983 wondering why we couldn’t just shoot all those homosexual drug dealers.’ and pointing out them not liking the constitution does not, in fact, mean the constitution is well-written.
Horrible people can dislike things that are, in actual fact, bad things.
Although, for the record, the problem _they_ have with the constitution is not with the part that actually is poorly-written, which was my point about ‘I’m not actually talking about civil rights, but the actual mechanical implementation of the governing process, like when and how voting happens’.Report
Keep in mind whoever “updates” the Constitution will disagree with you on many core issues. If we look at the various amendments that have been proposed, something that prevents flag burning and abortion would likely be in there.Report
The entire testimony to day has been bonkers. When asked whether he believes in the peaceful transfer of power, Michael Flynn pleaded the 5th. Ms. Hutchinson testified that his supporters be allowed to move around and in the Capitol despite being armed to the death and ready to do murder. The Video Games Freikorps was chanting for Pence to be hung high and Trump was cheering them on. His plea to stop was more or less a sexual urge for more coup. Also Trump had a giant rage attack when Barr refused to say the election was stolen.Report
Everything we’ve heard from Hutchinson is completely cray-cray. Like, a sack full of rabid meerkats kind of crazy.Report
So it is a day ending in y when talking about Trump? There have been multiple times I have thought, this has to be rock bottom. I have always been wrong.Report
Trump has no bottom.
It’s never “as bad as it can get”.Report
It’s…literally exactly what I expected Trump to be doing that day.
A lot of people have been, until just now, crowing about ‘Trump sent them to wreck the place up and promised he’d be there and have their back, and then he bailed! He’s a coward.’
But I always disbelieved that narrative. Trump is the sort of person who will stand at the back of the crowd, sure, he’s not going to get his hands dirty, he’ll be standing behind bodyguards. But he’s still going to be with the crowd, riling them up, and the fact he wasn’t there was probably a large part of why his coup failed. That combined with the fact he’d promised to be there, made me always suspect something had _stopped_ him.
Also the fact he never bothered to pardon any of them…because he’s exactly the sort of petty person who would hold the fact he couldn’t be there against the rioters who could.
Like, I feel that the part of that day that I was always most confused about just got solved.Report
Why should he pardon them?
1) They failed.
2) More importantly, pardoning them doesn’t help him.Report
I mean, valid point, but I do think he would have been _slightly_ more inclined to pardon people if they’d been in front of him throwing punches, even if they failed.
But you’re probably right, their failure probably sealed their fate regardless.
Honestly, what I want to hear about are the two weeks _after_ that. I honestly think he spent the next two weeks in petulant anger, nearly completely controlled/ignored by people around him desperate to just make it out of this damn administration without going to jail, with a lot of people just flatly refusing to take his orders or even refusing to go anywhere near him because they knew he’d order them to do illegal stuff.
Basically, from the moment that Mike Pence started giving orders to the National Guard on Jan 6th until noon on Jan 20th, we had a soft coup by the Trump Administration that was desperately trying to stop a hard coup by Trump himself.Report
First, we owe a lot to Pence.
2nd, calling what he did a “coup” is like calling Nancy Reagan’s work a coup at the end of Reagan’s term. We had a mentally ill President. He believes things that are insane. His orders are also insane.Report
That…also was a soft coup? Probably?
A soft coup is, or at least _one_ of the types of soft coups is, when the ‘support people’ around someone in charge decide that person does not actually get to use their power, and just…ignore their orders and start issuing orders themselves. It’s when power is still supposedly in one person’s name, but someone else has seized that power.
It’s a coup because different people have seized power and are in charge, it’s soft because the system looks like it is still intact from the outside, no one changed any rules or the names of anyone in any position or anything, no violence was used to get there…the people in charge of taking orders and operating the system just have started ignoring the orders and doing what they think is reasonable.
Although I’m not sure how much of Reagan was a soft coup, because to be a coup we’d really need an example of Reagan trying to _do something_ and failing, and he probably didn’t? Power was seized in his name, but it wasn’t really seized _from him_…he already couldn’t use it.Report
This is all truly extraordinary, so much so that I’m taking a break from my already covid compromised vacation to follow it.Report
I am likewise shocked, both at the testimony and that Ms. Hutchinson is testifying.Report
She had apparently already said a lot of this on video to the committee. I remain bemused that Republicans actually thought no would testify and the committee wouldn’t use what it had.Report
Hope your covid and vacation work out well. This is a 19 alarm fire that 99% of repub’s in this country will gladly sign on to and offer to help next time there is a coup.Report
Thank you. Even vaccinated and boosted it has been quite unpleasant.
And I certainly hope some changes of heart are happening. The really striking part to me is the less salacious but just as nasty allegations of witnesses intimidation. That can get you charged under state law, not just federal. Even if DOJ thinks it’s too political any states with jurisdiction ought to investigate.Report
There is an active investigation in Georgia that’s getting too little attention I think.Report
Yeah, and while the Georgia GOP leadership hasn’t been that loud about it, a good chunk of them are extremely pissed at Trump’s behavior towards Georgia Republicans.
Which means they are all cooperating with the court case.
I’ve mentioned this before: Georgia has been a single-party good-ole-boys for a very long time, even while that party switched from Democrats to Republicans.
And one of the things that has to happen in such states is that the people in charge need to, uh, know how to govern and have minimal competence…unlike states that just flooded red in the last decade and have a bunch of wackadoodle-burn-the-government-to-the-ground elected officials. Converts are always the crazists, people who grow up in the system know the actual rules and limitations of it.
Georgia’s government is a red government in a state that a) is trending blue, and b) actually does require competent governance, being a worldwide airhub and travel destination and having a major city and a port and, like…it’s not some random rural state. _And_ it’s not a state like Florida where Republicans are always fighting with Democrats and thus can be horrifically incompetent and blame Democrats and have Democrats save them. If something goes wrong in Georgia…it almost certainly was the Republicans, we all know that! (Unless they can blame ‘Atlanta’, which is why that often is a mess.)
Georgia Republicans get a little pissy when Republican fanatics start trying to get them to break the law. They have a good thing going here, they can live comfortably and then retire, and they’d like to not go to jail, thank you very much.Report
We need to wait 24-48 hours to see how Republicans regroup. The character assassination of Ms. Hutchinson has already begun but normie media reports that the Republicans think of this as “multiple bombshells.”Report
She named names. And probably provided the emails. I think the floor plan showing exactly how physically close she was to Meadows and to Trump probably means they know she knows because in the WH proximity is everything.
She gave one last opening to anyone looking to try and redeem themselves. But its the last one.Report
When Trump is finally on fire, lots of rats will flee and name names.Report
Seems he’s heating up . . . . .
The real question is will the rats flee, regroup and retry the same thing? I mean they keep voting for people like this so one has to wonder
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/us/politics/jim-marchant-nevada-secretary-of-state.htmlReport
My hope is after Trump is gone, we have someone re-enforce the guard rails that society needs. I could see a President Pence doing something like that.Report
Lots of people will still need to be convicted to do that, including a number of politicians. It will take a national willingness to really screw over a lot of important folks. We aren’t there yet.Report
Yeah, that’s my reaction that we will have to see if any minds are turned by this or if the 70 million Trump voters will just say “Yes please more of this please!”
I’m hopeful, but wary.Report
They let him drive?Report
Minor correction, but I don’t think this is right. Appears that the NYTimes has already deleted that Tweet and re-worded the reporting.
Hutchinson wasn’t in the car, so couldn’t have witnessed Trump trying to grab the wheel. She testified that she was told this by someone else.Report
My goodness, they have!
Lemme update.Report
“Let’s see him wriggle out of this one!”
(Trump literally just sits there and the thing falls apart all by itself)
“Ah, well. Nevertheless…”Report
Is “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” still a thing?Report
I don’t think so in her case – more of malpractice by the committee – unless they deliver the goods on corroborating witnesses. Which, given leaked statements from the USSS seems not forthcoming. So just a dumb unforced error that overshadows the main point which was that Trump was actively inciting the riot.Report
Funny, your autocorrect changed “coup” to “riot”.Report
The USSS will never testify in public hearings of any kind regarding Presidential behavior. They are not wrong when they point out it damages their ability to gain the trust of successive protectees. The leaks in response to her testimony are very unlikely to be backed up by appearances of the agents in question.
I also don’t think this is a committee issue. She was asked a question and responded that she had heard X. What the Committee needs to do is find out – and publicize – who told her X. That person seems to have som ‘splainin to do.Report
“She was asked a question and responded that she had heard X”
Asking the question. They had already interviewed her (we saw snippets during her testimony) and knew what she was going to say.
Don’t ask the question.Report
Her testimony overshadowed this gem:
So we have a former General of the United State Army, who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution when he became an officer refusing to answer whether he still supports a bedrock principal of that same Constitution – by saying he doesn’t want to incriminate himself (using another bedrock principal of that Constitution).
Someone else is probably better informed on this, but aren’t General Officers still subject to the UCMJ? And wouldn’t he be subject to Court Martial for failing to fulfill his oath – never mind any complicity he has in the January 6th insurrection?
And shouldn’t we be worried – even a little bit – about this?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/politics/michael-flynn-5th-amendment-january-6/index.htmlReport
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is after you take the 5th you have to continue taking it for everything else. Thus mobsters taking the 5th when asked their name.Report
complaining about someone invoking their Constitutional right not to be forced to testify?
welcome to the Republican Party, sir, your complimentary racism is on the table to the left.Report
Now we return you to the land of Reality, where Trump is less of a loose cannon than Bill Gates.
(yes, seriously. Trump’s better at playing a WWF maniac — he’s still a real estate dude from new york.)Report