SATURDAY: Has it been the ketamine talking?

SATURDAY, MAY 31, 2025

Return of the transgender mice: Yesterday, the stumblebum appeared in the Oval again, this time for a valedictory.

Was it just the ketamine talking? We have no way of knowing. That said, he Fox News Channel's Peter Doocy kept trying to ask a question—and the stumblebum kept interrupting:

DOOCY (5/30/25): The president mentioned that you like to deal with all the slings and arrows during your time at DOGE. There's this—

MUSK (interrupting): Some people—some of the media organizations in this room are the slingers. (Chuckles)

DOOCY: Well, so there's a New York Times report today that accuses you of blurring the line between—

MUSK (interrupting): Oh wait, wait! New York Times? Is that the same publication that’s got a Pulitzer Prize for false reporting on the Russiagate? Is it the same organization?

DOOCY: I gotta check my Pulitzer counter.

MUSK: I think it is! I think it is!

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It is.

MUSK: I think the judge just ruled against New York Times for their lies about the Russiagate hoax. And that they might have to give back that Pulitzer Prize. That New York Times? Let’s move on!

Poor Doocy! He never got to ask the question he had been planning to ask. To watch the stumblebum shut Doocy down, just can click for the C-Span videotape, then click ahead to minute 17.

Credit where due! The stumblebum Musk was ready with a classic non-answer answer. Was it just the ketamine talking? We have no way of knowing.

Doocy was apparently trying to ask about a belated report about Musk's alleged drug use—the belated report which had appeared online, that very day, at the New York Times. 

(It's in today's print editions.)

Doocy was apparently going to ask about that report. But as he tried to ask his question, the stumblebum kept breaking in. So it goes, in what may be the most stumblebum of all possible worlds. 

(For a report from Mediaite, with videotape included, you can just click here.)

Full disclosure! The New York Times was late to this game—to reporting about Musk's reported misuse of various drugs, with ketamine first among equals. Such reports had appeared in major publications dating to August 2023—but with this, as with so many phenomena, the Times had taken a standard approach:

Nothing to look at! Just move along! 

 So our greatest newspaper had said.

Is there something to look at there? We can't necessarily tell you. But given the various lunatic thing this manifest stumblebum has posted and said, who wouldn't have wondered, speaking colloquially if this nutcase might not be on drugs?

Who wouldn't have asked that question? You can start with the New York Times. After that. you can move ahead to the major stars we're taught to love on MSNBC.

Doocy never got go to ask his question. Meanwhile, the other journalists in the room let Musk's stonewall stand.

There's always a journalist willing to ask a totally different question. We'll return to Musk's "Russiagate" dodge at the end of this report.

Yesterday, the stumblebum conduct was general over the Oval Office. Eventually, the sitting president managed to spew this set of remarks about all the waste and fraud the stumblebum's engineers found.

Warning! This is all blatantly bogus:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (5/30/25): I can say it’s $2 billion to Stacey Abrams and her environmental movement. There was $100 in the account and all of a sudden they found $2 billion in the account. And I assume that’s being looked at. I don’t know. I’m not sure. I assume it’s being looked at. 

Think of that—$2 billion! 

And then he will tell you there’s another one over there for $20 billion being spent on another environmental. $20 billion. Not $20 million, a lot. Not $200,000, which is a lot, so think of it in her case. You have $100, and now all of a sudden, she gets hit with an infusion of $2 billion just before I take office.

$20 million for Arab Sesame Street in the Middle East. Nobody knows what that’s all about, nobody’s been able to find it.

$8 million for making mice transgender. So they spent $8 million on making mice transgender, and those are better than many of the others. I could sit here all day and read things just like that. We have other things to do.

We don't doubt it! We believe the sitting president could "sit there all day" making such bogus assertions. Bogus assertions are his stock in trade, just as it has been with the possible ketamine kid.

Peak bogus! According to the sitting president. DOGE wiped out $8 million spent for creating transgender mice! Beyond that, $20 billion—with a B—had gone to Stacey Abrams! Also, there was $20 million for an Arab Sesame Street!

"Nobody knows what that’s all about," the sitting president falsely said.

In this report for Mediaite, Alex Griffing caught only one of those three bogus claims. It's been corrected a million times, but the president just keeps saying it:

Trump Praises Musk For Ending Studies on ‘Making Mice Transgender’–Which Were Actually Asthma and Cancer Research

President Donald Trump was joined by Elon Musk on Friday in the Oval Office for a farewell presser as Musk exits his role leading DOGE.

Trump began the event with some praise for Musk’s work in the administration and eventually listed off some of the savings DOGE has claimed to have made for the federal government—including one widely debunked claim about “transgender mice.”

And so on from there. It's been debunked a million times, but the president just keeps saying it as journalists look on.

That said, the claim about Stacey Abrams has been thoroughly shot down too. For the Washinton Post's four-Pinocchio Fact Checker report, you can just click this. 

(Headline: "Trump’s false claim that Stacey Abrams headed a group that got $1.9 billion.")

Regarding that Arab Sesame Street, was it really waste, fraud and abuse? Does no one know what it's all about?

To see that bogus claim assessed, you can just click here. 

(Headline: "Why the Arabic ‘Sesame Street’ and Other Cuts Are Not Really About Fraud.") Hint—it was all about "soft power.")

Dr. King often pictured the prophesied day when justice would "roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." In our day, bullshit and these lunatic statements roll down out of the Oval Office—sometimes from a struggling person like Elon Musk, routinely from the nation's sitting president.

Is something wrong with those two men? If so, that constitutes a tragic, but also a destructive, loss of human potential. But as this process has unfolded, the New York Times has persistently signaled this:

There's nothing to look at here! Just keep moving along!

Back to Musk's stifle of the Fox News Channel's Doocy:

Was something wrong with the New York Times' reporting about what Musk called "the Russiagate hoax?" Everything is always possible! On the other hand, this:

Jointly with the Washington Post, the Times was awarded a Pulitzer in 2018 for its reporting on that topic. The president is suing the Pulitzer committee about that—but then again, who isn't the sitting president suing at the present time?

Was something wrong with the Times' reporting? Two years after the Pulitzer was awarded, the Senate Intelligence Committee, with Marco Rubio in charge, released a sprawling report about that very topic. Click here for the AP report:

Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says

The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help.

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia.

[...]

Several Republicans on the panel submitted “additional views” to the report, saying it should state more explicitly that Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russia. They say that while the report shows the Russian government “inappropriately meddled” in the election, “then-candidate Trump was not complicit.”

The panel’s acting GOP chairman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, signed on to that statement but the chairman who led the investigation, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, did not. Burr stepped aside earlier this year as the FBI was examining his stock sales. Another Republican committee member, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, also did not sign on to the GOP statement.

Was "Russiagate" a hoax? That's what Musk vaguely claimed, for perhaps the ten millionth time, yesterday in the Oval—thereby finding a way to duck the ketamine report.

Was that whole thing a hoax? The children say that every day on the Fox News Channel. But uh-oh:

The Republican-led Senate intelligence committee reported that Russia did, in fact, "launch an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf." Marco Rubio was the acting chairman of the Republican-led committee which issued that report.

“Then-candidate Trump was not complicit?" We don't know if that assessment was or wasn't accurate. For the record, Rubio signed on to that assertion. Other Republicans did not. 

Everyone knows about thar report, except the millions of people who watch the Fox News Channel. Also, except the people who saw Musk interrupting Doocy yesterday in the Oval.

From there, the garbage flowed like a mighty stream as journalists silently watched.

Has something been wrong with President Trump? With the manifest stumblebum Musk?

We've been using the "stumblebum" language because that is the most accurate way to describe the man's ongoing conduct. That's the accurate, descriptive term for his man's persistent conduct.

He has said that Hitler didn't do it. He has said that Senator Kelly, the former astronaut, is in fact a traitor. 

There's almost no stupid thing he hasn't said. But the Times has refused to react, as have the stars we're taught to love at MSNBC. 

If something is wrong with these powerful men, that is, of course, a human tragedy. But it's also a dangerous, destructive situation, and the Times keep refusing to act. 

They need to speak to appropriate specialists about why this destructive conduct just keeps occurring. Could it be the ketamine talking? Could it be the sociopathy? 

Could it be a different "psychopathology?" Could it maybe be time to ask?

No, Virginia! There were no transgender mice. There was no $2 billion handed to Stacey Abrams.

Also, there weren't as many as twenty million people—average age, 150!—receiving Social Security checks. That was a statement of total madness—but as Trump and Musk kept making that lunatic statement, the Times kept taking a dive.

Children, there were no transgender mice—but there was an assault by the Russians.

Something seems to be wrong with these men, and these men are very powerful. No modern nation can expect to function with people like this repeatedly behaving this way.

It's time for the disordered people at the New York Times to act. It's time to call a spade a spade—to go ahead and report straight out that something is plainly quite wrong.

Full disclosure: The New York Times will never do that. Neither will Rachel Maddow or Lawrence, and neither will Chris Hayes. They'll never interview appropriate specialists to ask what this conduct might mean.

Dearest darlings, use you heads! It's as we've told you for many years. It simply isn't done!