The Real Donald Trump Is a Character on TV

Understand that, and you’ll understand what he’s doing in the White House.

On Sept. 1, with a Category 5 hurricane off the Atlantic coast, an angry wind was issuing from the direction of President Trump’s Twitter account. The apparent emergency: Debra Messing, the co-star of “Will & Grace,” had tweeted that “the public has a right to know” who is attending a Beverly Hills fund-raiser for Mr. Trump’s re-election.

“I have not forgotten that when it was announced that I was going to do The Apprentice, and when it then became a big hit, Helping NBC’s failed lineup greatly, @DebraMessing came up to me at an Upfront & profusely thanked me, even calling me ‘Sir,’ ” wrote the 45th president of the United States.

It was a classic Trumpian ragetweet: aggrieved over a minor slight, possibly prompted by a Fox News segment, unverifiable — he has a long history of questionable tales involving someone calling him “Sir” — and nostalgic for his primetime-TV heyday. (By Thursday he was lashing Ms. Messing again, as Hurricane Dorian was lashing the Carolinas.)

This is a futile effort. Try to understand Donald Trump as a person with psychology and strategy and motivation, and you will inevitably spiral into confusion and covfefe. The key is to remember that Donald Trump is not a person. He’s a TV character.

I mean, O.K., there is an actual person named Donald John Trump, with a human body and a childhood and formative experiences that theoretically a biographer or therapist might usefully delve into someday. (We can only speculate about the latter; Mr. Trump has boasted on Twitter of never having seen a psychiatrist, preferring the therapeutic effects of “hit[ting] ‘sleazebags’ back.”)

But that Donald Trump is of limited significance to America and the world. The “Donald Trump” who got elected president, who has strutted and fretted across the small screen since the 1980s, is a decades-long media performance. To understand him, you need to approach him less like a psychologist and more like a TV critic.

He was born in 1946, at the same time that American broadcast TV was being born. He grew up with it. His father, Fred, had one of the first color TV sets in Jamaica Estates. In “The Art of the Deal” Donald Trump recalls his mother, Mary Anne, spending a day in front of the tube, enraptured by the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953. (“For Christ’s sake, Mary,” he remembers his father saying, “Enough is enough, turn it off. They’re all a bunch of con artists.”)

TV was his soul mate. It was like him. It was packed with the razzle-dazzle and action and violence that captivated him. He dreamed of going to Hollywood, then he shelved those dreams in favor of his father’s business and vowed, according to the book “TrumpNation” by Timothy O’Brien, to “put show business into real estate.”

As TV evolved from the homogeneous three-network mass medium of the mid-20th century to the polarized zillion-channel era of cable-news fisticuffs and reality shocker-tainment, he evolved with it. In the 1980s, he built a media profile as an insouciant, high-living apex predator. In 1990, he described his yacht and gilded buildings to Playboy as “Props for the show … The show is ‘Trump’ and it is sold-out performances everywhere.”

He syndicated that show to Oprah, Letterman, NBC, WrestleMania and Fox News. Everything he achieved, he achieved by using TV as a magnifying glass, to make himself appear bigger than he was.

He was able to do this because he thought like a TV camera. He knew what TV wanted, what stimulated its nerve endings. In his campaign rallies, he would tell The Washington Post, he knew just what to say “to keep the red light on”: that is, the light on a TV camera that showed that it was running, that you mattered. Bomb the [redacted] out of them! I’d like to punch him in the face! The red light radiated its approval. Cable news aired the rallies start to finish. For all practical purposes, he and the camera shared the same brain.

Even when he adopted social media, he used it like TV. First, he used it like a celebrity, to broadcast himself, his first tweet in 2009 promoting a “Late Show With David Letterman” appearance. Then he used it like an instigator, tweeting his birther conspiracies before he would talk about them on Fox News, road-testing his call for a border wall during the cable-news fueled Ebola and border panics of the 2014 midterms.

When he was a candidate, and especially when he was president, his tweets programmed TV and were amplified by it. On CNBC, a “BREAKING NEWS: TRUMP TWEET” graphic would spin out onscreen as soon as the words left his thumbs. He would watch Fox News, or Lou Dobbs, or CNN or “Morning Joe” or “Saturday Night Live” (“I don’t watch”), and get mad, and tweet. Then the tweets would become TV, and he would watch it, and tweet again.

If you want to understand what President Trump will do in any situation, then, it’s more helpful to ask: What would TV do? What does TV want?

It wants conflict. It wants excitement. If there is something that can blow up, it should blow up. It wants a fight. It wants more. It is always eating and never full.

Some presidential figure-outers, trying to understand the celebrity president through a template that they were already familiar with, have compared him with Ronald Reagan: a “master showman” cannily playing a “role.”

The comparison is understandable, but it’s wrong. Presidents Reagan and Trump were both entertainers who applied their acts to politics. But there’s a crucial difference between what “playing a character” means in the movies and what it means on reality TV.

Ronald Reagan was an actor. Actors need to believe deeply in the authenticity and interiority of people besides themselves — so deeply that they can subordinate their personalities to “people” who are merely lines on a script. Acting, Reagan told his biographer Lou Cannon, had taught him “to understand the feelings and motivations of others.”

Being a reality star, on the other hand, as Donald Trump was on “The Apprentice,” is also a kind of performance, but one that’s antithetical to movie acting. Playing a character on reality TV means being yourself, but bigger and louder.

Reality TV, writ broadly, goes back to Allen Funt’s “Candid Camera,” the PBS documentary “An American Family,” and MTV’s “The Real World.” But the first mass-market reality TV star was Richard Hatch, the winner of the first season of “Survivor” — produced by Mark Burnett, the eventual impresario of “The Apprentice”— in the summer of 2000.

Mr. Hatch won that first season in much the way that Mr. Trump would run his 2016 campaign. He realized that the only rules were that there were no rules. He lied and backstabbed and took advantage of loopholes, and he argued — with a telegenic brashness — that this made him smart. This was a crooked game in a crooked world, he argued to a final jury of players he’d betrayed and deceived. But, hey: At least he was open about it!

While shooting that first season, the show’s crew was rooting for Rudy Boesch, a 72-year-old former Navy SEAL and model of hard work and fair play. “The only outcome nobody wanted was Richard Hatch winning,” the host, Jeff Probst, would say later. It “would be a disaster.” After all, decades of TV cop shows had taught executives the iron rule that the viewers needed the good guy to win.

But they didn’t. “Survivor” was addictively entertaining, and audiences loved-to-hate the wryly devious Richard the way they did Tony Soprano and, before him, J.R. Ewing. More than 50 million people watched the first-season finale, and “Survivor” has been on the air nearly two decades.

From Richard Hatch, we got a steady stream of Real Housewives, Kardashians, nasty judges, dating-show contestants who “didn’t come here to make friends” and, of course, Donald Trump.

Reality TV has often gotten a raw deal from critics. (Full disclosure: I still watch “Survivor.”) Its audiences, often dismissed as dupes, are just as capable of watching with a critical eye as the fans of prestige cable dramas. But when you apply its mind-set — the law of the TV jungle — to public life, things get ugly.

In reality TV — at least competition reality shows like “The Apprentice” — you do not attempt to understand other people, except as obstacles or objects. To try to imagine what it is like to be a person other than yourself (what, in ordinary, off-camera life, we call “empathy”) is a liability. It’s a distraction that you have to tune out in order to project your fullest you.

Reality TV instead encourages “getting real.” On MTV’s progressive, diverse “Real World,” the phrase implied that people in the show were more authentic than characters on scripted TV — or even than real people in your own life, who were socially conditioned to “be polite.” But “getting real” would also resonate with a rising conservative notion: that political correctness kept people from saying what was really on their minds.

Being real is not the same thing as being honest. To be real is to be the most entertaining, provocative form of yourself. It is to say what you want, without caring whether your words are kind or responsible — or true — but only whether you want to say them. It is to foreground the parts of your personality (aggression, cockiness, prejudice) that will focus the red light on you, and unleash them like weapons.

Maybe the best definition of being real came from the former “Apprentice” contestant and White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman in her memoir, “Unhinged.” Mr. Trump, she said, encouraged people in his entourage to “exaggerate the unique part of themselves.” When you’re being real, there is no difference between impulse and strategy, because the “strategy” is to do what feels good.

This is why it misses a key point to ask, as Vanity Fair recently did after Mr. Trump’s assault on Representative Elijah E. Cummings and the city of Baltimore in July, “Is the president a racist, or does he just play one on TV?” In reality TV, if you are a racist — and reality TV has had many racists, like Katie Hopkins, the far-right British “Apprentice” star the president frequently retweets — then you are a racist and you play one on TV.

So if you actually want a glimpse into the mind of Donald J. Trump, don’t look for a White House tell-all or some secret childhood heartbreak. Go to the streaming service Tubi, where his 14 seasonsof “The Apprentice” recently became accessible to the public.

You can fast-forward past the team challenges and the stagey visits to Trump-branded properties. They’re useful in their own way, as a picture of how Mr. Burnett buttressed the future president’s Potemkin-zillionaire image. But the unadulterated, 200-proof Donald Trump is found in the boardroom segments, at the end of each episode, in which he “fires” one contestant.

In theory, the boardroom is where the best performers in the week’s challenges are rewarded and the screw-ups punished. In reality, the boardroom is a new game, the real game, a free-for-all in which contestants compete to throw one another under the bus and beg Mr. Trump for mercy.

There is no morality in the boardroom. There is no fair and unfair in the boardroom. There is only the individual, trying to impress Mr. Trump, to flatter Mr. Trump, to commune with his mind and anticipate his whims and fits of pique. Candidates are fired for

  • being too nice to their adversaries (weak), for
  • giving credit to their teammates, for
  • interrupting him.

The host’s decisions were often so mercurial, producers have said, that they would have to go back and edit the episodes to impose some appearance of logic on them.

What saves you in the boardroom? Fighting. Boardroom Trump loves to see people fight each other. He perks up at it like a cat hearing a can opener. He loves to watch people scrap for his favor (as they eventually would in his White House). He loves asking contestants to rat out their teammates and watching them squirm with conflict. The unity of the team gives way to disunity, which in the Trumpian worldview is the most productive state of being.

 

And America loved boardroom Trump — for a while. He delivered his catchphrase in TV cameos and slapped it on a reissue of his 1980s Monopoly knockoff Trump: The Game. (“I’m back and you’re fired!”) But after the first season, the ratings dropped; by season four they were nearly half what they were in season one.

He reacted to his declining numbers by ratcheting up what worked before: becoming a louder, more extreme, more abrasive version of himself. He gets more insulting in the boardroom — “You hang out with losers and you become a loser”— and executes double and quadruple firings.

It’s a pattern that we see as he advances toward his re-election campaign, with an eye not on the Nielsen ratings but on the polls: The only solution for any given problem was a Trumpier Trump.

Did it work for “The Apprentice”? Yes and no. His show hung on to a loyal base through 14 seasons, including the increasingly farcical celebrity version. But it never dominated its competition again, losing out, despite his denials, to the likes of the sitcom “Mike & Molly.”

Donald Trump’s “Apprentice” boardroom closed for business on Feb. 16, 2015, precisely four months before he announced his successful campaign for president. And also, it never closed. It expanded. It broke the fourth wall. We live inside it now.

Now, Mr. Trump re-creates the boardroom’s helter-skelter atmosphere every time he opens his mouth or his Twitter app. In place of the essentially dead White House press briefing, he walks out to the lawn in the morning and reporters gaggle around him like “Apprentice” contestants awaiting the day’s task. He rails and complains and establishes the plot points for that day’s episode:

  • Greenland!
  • Jews!
  • “I am the chosen one!”

Then cable news spends morning to midnight happily masticating the fresh batch of outrages before memory-wiping itself to prepare for tomorrow’s episode. Maybe this sounds like a TV critic’s overextended metaphor, but it’s also the president’s: As The Times has reported, before taking office, he told aides to think of every day as “an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals.”

Mr. Trump has been playing himself instinctually as a character since the 1980s; it’s allowed him to maintain a profile even through bankruptcies and humiliations. But it’s also why, on the rare occasions he’s had to publicly attempt a role contrary to his naturecalling for healing from a script after a mass shooting, for instance — he sounds as stagey and inauthentic as an unrehearsed amateur doing a sitcom cameo.

His character shorthand is “Donald Trump, Fighter Guy Who Wins.” Plop him in front of a camera with an infant orphaned in a mass murder, and he does not have it in his performer’s tool kit to do anything other than smile unnervingly and give a fat thumbs-up.

This is what was lost on commentators who kept hoping wanly that this State of the Union or that tragedy would be the moment he finally became “presidential.” It was lost on journalists who felt obligated to act as though every modulated speech from a teleprompter might, this time, be sincere.

The institution of the office is not changing Donald Trump, because he is already in the sway of another institution. He is governed not by the truisms of past politics but by the imperative of reality TV: never de-escalate and never turn the volume down.

This conveniently echoes the mantra he learned from his early mentor, Roy Cohn: Always attack and never apologize. He serves up one “most shocking episode ever” after another, mining uglier pieces of his core each time: progressing from profanity about Haiti and Africa in private to publicly telling four minority American congresswomen, only one of whom was born outside the United States, to “go back” to the countries they came from.

  • The taunting.
  • The insults.
  • The dog whistles.
  • The dog bullhorns.
  • The “Lock her up” and “Send her back.”

All of it follows reality-TV rules. Every season has to top the last. Every fight is necessary, be it against Ilhan Omar or Debra Messing. Every twist must be more shocking, every conflict more vicious, lest the red light grow bored and wink off. The only difference: Now there’s no Mark Burnett to impose retroactive logic on the chaos, only press secretaries, pundits and Mike Pence.

To ask whether any of this is “instinct” or “strategy” is a parlor game. If you think like a TV camera — if thinking in those reflexive microbursts of adrenaline and testosterone has served you your whole life — then the instinct is the strategy.

And to ask who the “real” Donald Trump is, is to ignore the obvious. You already know who Donald Trump is. All the evidence you need is right there on your screen. He’s half-man, half-TV, with a camera for an eye that is constantly focused on itself. The red light is pulsing, 24/7, and it does not appear to have an off switch.

Five Types of High-Conflict Personalities

High-conflict personalities are fundamentally adversarial personalities. They don’t see their part in their own problems and instead are preoccupied with blaming others—possibly you. In this blog series, I offer many tips for dealing with high-conflict people (HCPs). Today, I describe the basic features of 5 types of high-conflict personalities, so that you can be aware of them, in order to avoid them or deal with them more effectively.

They all have the basic HCP pattern of:

1) Targets of Blame,

2) a lot of all-or-nothing thinking,

3) unmanaged emotions and

4) extreme behaviors.

In addition, they also have traits of 5 personality disorders. Some may just have traits and others have a full disorder. This can make them very difficult, but also more predictable. Here is a very brief overview of some of their common patterns of behavior:

1. Antisocial HCPs: These are also known as sociopaths or psychopathsaggressive people without a conscience. Antisocial personalities can be extremely charming and deceptive, combined with being extremely cruel to get what they want. Antisocial HCPs blame their Targets for causing their many frustrations, interfering with their schemes or simply because they got in the way. They are con artists, often involved in criminal schemes and loyal to no one—not even each other. (This does not include people who just “don’t feel social” this weekend.)

They punish their Targets in relationships and then expect sex and affection even after hurting them. They seem to be more biologically energized to harm people without remorse. For example, the Texas shooter in yesterday’s mass church shooting was reportedly angry at his estranged wife’s parents, and so went to kill everyone at the church they attended. Would he fit here?

2. Narcissistic HCPs: Most people are familiar with the self-absorption of narcissistic personalities, but narcissistic HCPs focus intensely on their Targets of Blame. They are constantly putting them down, often in public, in an effort to prove they are superior beings. They use a lot of insults with their partners, yet at the same time they demand admiration and affection. They claim their behavior is justified because others treat them so unfairly. Yet they have no real empathy for their Targets of Blame or anyone else. In the workplace, they are known for “kicking down” (on those below them) and “kissing up” (to those above them), so that management won’t realize how bad they really are. Bullying and sexual harassment may fit right into their drive for power and superiority.

3. Borderline HCPs: They are preoccupied with their close relationships and cling to them. However, sooner or later they will treat their partners, children, parents, co-workers, bosses, and others as Targets of Blame for any perceived abandonment. Their rages can be quite dangerous: physically, emotionally, legally, financially, reputationally or otherwise. Yet their moods swing both ways, so you may feel whip-sawed by how quickly they go from friendly to rage to friendly again (and then rage again).

As a therapist and lawyer, I have seen many borderline HCPs fighting for custody in family court against their Targets of Blame with extreme behavior including domestic violence, child alienation and/or false allegations. They are both men and women, driven to cling to their children (and each other) to avoid feelings of abandonment.

4. Paranoid HCPs: They can be suspicious of everyone around them, and believe there are conspiracies to block their careers at work, their friendships and their family relationships. They can carry grudges for years, and then punish their Targets of Blame. Paranoid HCPs may believe that those around them are about to harm them, so they may pre-emptively attack their Targets. They easily feel treated unjustly and in the workplace, some experts say “the majority of lawsuits are filed by this type of coworker.” (Cavaiola & Lavender, 2000)

5. Histrionic HCPs: This personality is most often associated with drama and endless emotional stories. Yet histrionic HCPs often accuse their Targets of Blame of exaggerated or fabricated behavior, to hurt them or to manipulate them. They assume relationships are deeper than they are so that they are constantly feeling surprised and hurt by how others react to them. They demand to be the center of attention and attack their Targets of Blame when they are not. They often involve others in their many complaints, which can lead to public accusations and humiliation for their Targets of Blame.

Overview: None of these HCP personality patterns have anything to do with intelligence, as they range from super smart to not very smart at all, like the rest of the population. There are some personality disorders in every occupation, geographic region (although slightly more in urban areas) and income group (although lower income has slightly more, the higher income ones can attract more attention).

It’s important to note that many people with personality disorders are not HCPs, which means that they do not have Targets of Blame who they attack or purposely injure. But if you see someone with a high-conflict personality, the fact that they also have traits of a personality disorder means that they are unlikely to have insight into their own behavior and unlikely to change. This means that you should be careful to avoid the mistakes I mentioned in my last blog. You also may want to consider using the methods I describe in the coming weeks.

 

Crazy Is as Crazy Does

My head hurts, puzzling over whether Trump is just a big blowhard who’s flailing around, or a sinister genius laying traps to get himself impeached to animate the base ahead of the election.

.. Just as Trump once wore out contractors, bankers, lawyers and businesspeople in New York with his combative, insulting and wayward ways, now he’s wearing out the political crowd, as he tries to beat everybody here into submission with his daily, even hourly, onslaught of outrage piled upon outrage.

Journalists must not become inured to Trump’s outlandish, transgressive behavior. Mitch McConnell, Barr and almost everyone else in the G.O.P. have made themselves numb to his abhorrent actions because of self-interest.

Fmr Trump Org Exec: Donald Trump Scared Of New Don Jr. Subpoena | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBCFmr Trump Org Exec: Donald Trump Scared Of New Don Jr. Subpoena | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr. has been subpoenaed by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee. Members of the committee want to talk to him about matters related to the Russia investigation. Former Trump Organization Executive Barbara Res discusses why she believes people “do so much” for Trump, telling Ari Melber in some cases Trump “has something on them” or is “taking care of them in some way”.

 

breaking news the US Senate hitting
Donald Trump jr. with a subpoena late
today I was just discussing it with
congressman Jeffrey’s and the demand is
that he come back to discuss the rush of
probe the move adds a kind of a
bipartisan Sheen to Trump’s battles with
Congress today he is asserting executive
privilege over the whole Moeller report
which follows up on his demand that of
course his former council also defy
congressional quest for evidence and
then there’s the White House’s blanket
claim that Donald Trump wants to justify
all congressional subpoenas I want to
get into it with someone who knows how
Donald Trump fights in business and in
the courtroom Barbara rest is a former
Trump Organization executives you work
with Trump for over a decade and is also
the author of all alone on the 68th
floor and their burger a former federal
prosecutor and both SD and Y where the
Michael Cohen case was and Edie and why
good to have both of you here what does
it mean to you when you see Donald Trump
say we’re fighting all the subpoenas I
knew Trump or old Chuck old Trump from
you with it with inner twist absolutely
up with a new twist
yes president under six now it’s just
not just some guy you know some
developer yeah he refuses to do things
he typically would say no you know PS
things that he didn’t want to answer
provide information and want to provide
nothing new how does he test out whether
he thinks it’s working that’s a good
question
III think he always thinks it’s work and
to be honest with you that sounds crazy
but I think we read these stories about
him angrily yelling at people yelling at
Jeff Sessions documenting the poor
yelling and other people so frustrated
the in public he seems to say everything
I’d all like you know he has that he’s
sort of a fake DJ Khaled in public it’s
all I do is win and in private he’s
screaming I’m asked my presidency is
over Jeff Sessions you’re terrible and
so the mullah rapportive among other
things was simply embarrassing did you
ever see him in public say we’re gonna
win this case this or that way and then
in private say hey we may have to settle
yeah man I’ve never sung admit to being
the loser in private I saw him scream at
people
I saw him blaming people for things that
you know he thought might have happened
that shouldn’t have happened that he did
without a doubt but I’ve never seen him
myth that he was going to lose something
actually hmm interesting bear and I have
questions for you but any reaction to
that first I mean it’s interesting sort
of the the approach that one would take
in the private sector when it comes to
the civil litigation so the approach the
president may have been used to in his
previous life is really different than
the approach that is typically taken in
interactions between the executive and
the legislative branch which is you know
not let’s fight to the mat and you know
make a judge come in and make a decision
here there is this sort of
constitutionally rooted principle of
reasonable accommodation so it’s a very
different posture I think then the
president is probably used to fighting
his battles which means which means that
the legislative and the executive
branches are not expected to take
totally unreasonable positions and then
have a judge come in and try to make a
decision they are obligated courts have
found that this is an obligation that
they try to work together and that they
try to come to some sort of an
accommodation recognizing the interest
that each side has so this brings us to
why it’s great to have both of you here
as a DOJ expert and as a Trump expert I
know that’s maybe not what you set out
to be with the whole life yeah it’s not
your only skill set but it is one of
them it seems like Don Magan was trying
and at times failing to change or train
Donald Trump out of his worst impulses
indeed Don Magan may ultimately have
saved Donald Trump from the
self-inflicted massacre that might have
ended his presidency at that juncture
and it seems that mr. Barr is not doing
that that he’s actually encouraging
Donald Trump to give in to these
instincts what does it tell you that
Donald Trump’s first ever invocation of
executive power which is until the
courts overrule it unless they overrule
is a unitary unilateral thing he had to
be walked there by mr. Barr in part of
mr. bars fights with Congress it’s
almost like Donald Trump didn’t know how
to hit this lever without mr. Barr right
I mean you’ve seen very different
postures right I mean he was I don’t
want to say cooperative with the Malheur
investigation because he certainly
wasn’t cooperatively as we usually think
about it but he did let executive staff
talk to Muller he never had the proof I
wouldn’t call cooperative at all because
he did things that other people go to
jail for let’s narrow it to the gist the
privilege which is the news because
today is the only day the first state
Trump’s ever done this on the privilege
he never hit that button during the pro
correct and now today I’m gonna do it
Barbara I’m gonna do it again today bar
says mr. president we got to hit the
button for stuff that as far as I could
tell is not directly related to
privilege some of it and now they’re
doing it right it was they just see very
different postures that he was in sort
of pre and post bar
I mean look with respect to the
executive privilege today I mean the way
I sort of read it as this is a little
bit of a stalling technique he is trying
to sort of buy more time for them to I
didn’t continue to figure out how
they’re gonna fight the subpoena I mean
ultimately is there an executive
privilege for peripheral third party
information I think that it’s at least a
question that’s I mean it’s not a
slam-dunk either way I think it’s the
short answer here I think that they
there may be issues of valid issues of
privilege I think the bigger question is
were they waived so while they can sort
of hit this well I mean you’re so fair
which is why we have you here but I’ll
go further than you they were waived
they were waived they were waived at you
were waived I think there are n look
there are certain categories that there
just is no privilege for right like
anything that happened on the campaign
before he was actually the president
there’s no even plausible question of
whether that is covered by executive
privilege it’s just not so while there
are some that they may have some kind of
a plausible argument to put before court
there’s gonna be a huge loss that they
don’t you know I wanted to dive back a
little bit on why Trump didn’t hit the
button before yeah I don’t think you
could have hit the button how could he
have said we won’t cooperate with
legitimate an investigation I don’t
think you could say that now we can say
because he’s been you know exonerated
the bar exonerated him has he been
exonerated well according to him he has
according to as far as he has according
to the the people that want to allow him
like the entire Republican Party to pull
off the stuff that he’s pulling off yeah
so he now turns around he says he’s not
asking barfy should hit the button he
would have hit the button all along he
would have said no no I’m not giving him
that don’t bother me it’s only a
business I don’t think it’s bother told
him I think it was I think it’s just a
matter of now he’s got he’s got Meccano
amazing
it’s closed or whatever the hell we say
well why not why not stop it no one’s
gonna challenge him now whereas back
when everybody was interested well
what’s this guy mullet doing no he
couldn’t do it that that’s my I asked
you a question how does he get so many
people like Rosenstein like some of the
other DOJ officials mr. Horowitz in the
inspector general’s office who’s not a
household name but who really did what
Donald Trump asked for on Twitter and a
very unusual rousting of Andrew McKay
which we covered at the time mr. Rosen
site now mr. Barr how does he get so
many people well you and I both know
would have been the first to talk smack
about Donald Trump before he were
president and he knows deep down cuz
he’s an outer borough guy he he at least
seems to fear deep down that they don’t
really respect or like him how does he
get them to do so much for him you know
I I have to be honest with you this is
maybe a childish answer but I think that
he does one of three things
he is the Pied Piper to many people and
I’ve seen that happen I’ve seen it with
my own people I’ve seen architects that
he sued telling me what I’m voting for
him so some people just buy this BS
architects that he sued yeah I was are
you saying unfairly or oh absolutely and
they vote for him how do they explain it
to you oh he’s the best well first of
all people there’s the whole Hillary
problem which people just didn’t like
her but no he’s he’s really good for the
country
what is crap I mean he did sue him and
to him I think he might have been
impressed by the fact that is suit me
even though it was wrong and by the way
he won a large part of that lawsuit
because he got some people suggested to
provide information that was
questionable but the other two
possibilities are and this is the
childish part number one maybe he has
something on them and number two maybe
he’s taking care of them in some way or
another were the promise of this or a
promise of that well when you look at
the people that are in positions that
wrote about positive articles like the
tax guy or what you know wrote an
article and then next thing you know
he’s ahead of everything you know so
there’s a little quid pro quo there but
you know maybe with a guy like Barr
something he’s really got information I
don’t know like I said that sounds like
a computer
spiritually theorist but on the other
hand I mean it’s just you can’t explain
the number of people that are going
along with this guy Republican Jim
they’re just protecting the pond there’s
no quite my mind about that but somebody
like a bar why is he doing it why is
Rosenstein doing it I don’t know you
know what we call barber res in Brooklyn
a straight-shooter you work you were a
Brooklyn prosecutor I was I was I was
born a book which should be a credible
witness like absolutely Barbara Rad’s
and parrot burger digging into this on a
big story thank you both hey I’m already
Melbourne from MSNBC you can see more of
our videos right here or better yet
subscribe to our You Tube channel below
you could have been anywhere in the
world that you’re here with us and we
appreciate that