THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2026
And then, we had Megyn Kelly: And then, we had Megyn Kelly's reaction to the president's recent threats.
To view the tape, you can just click here. With apologies for our decision not to bleep, we think we can answer her questions:
KELLY (4/7/26): I don’t know about you, but I am sick of this shit! I’m just—I’m sick of it. Can’t he just behave like a normal human? I mean, honestly, like the president—“3D chess.” Just shut up! Fucking shut up about that shit!
You don’t threaten to wipe out an entire civilization. We’re talking about civilians, just casually in a social media post.
You know, like, I am the first to try to understand Trump and his strategy and not freak out over his weird social media posts and language that is loose and incendiary...But this is completely irresponsible and disgusting. This is wrong. It’s wrong. He should not be doing it.
I don’t care that it’s a negotia–his negotiation tactic is to kill an entire country full of civilians–men, women, and children–an American president, so that the Strait of Hormuz will be opened? It’s just wrong. It’s not hard to say it, it’s not hard to recognize it. I wish he would stop doing this. Like, he can’t negotiate without doing this? What does that say about him? What does that say about the position that our country is in right now in these negotiations?
He’s got to say this? He can’t be a dignified, strong leader without threatening a bunch of war crimes? Like what is he, Genghis Khan? Like, what is he trying to do and why can’t he do it with strength–threats, sure, go for it–that don’t diminish and demean the United States of America in this way?
So she said, on Tuesday's edition of The Megyn Kelly Show. For today, we'll regard these as her basic questions:
Can’t he just behave like a normal human? What does that say about him?
We think we can provide one (obvious) possible answer to those important questions. In yesterday's post, we said the same thing about David Remnick's recent question:
Who talks like this, Remnick had said.
We think we know how to answer these questions.
Tomorrow morning, we're going down to see the doc. If we can start to return to normal levels of energy and focus, we'll be happy to tell you what one obvious answer is.
Trump & Ilk - What a fucking disaster.
ReplyDeleteJust think how bad it would've been if it was Trump & Elk!
DeleteAn elk would make a vastly better president than Trump.
DeleteElks can damage an individual car, but can not end an entire civilization.
DeleteThe answer is not necessarily that Trump is insane. This kind of bluster can come from toxic masculinity, the belief that threats show strength and that MMA style wrestling callouts make him an alpha ruler among nations. Trump watches too many macho action adventure films and now he thinks he’s Deadpool. If that makes Trump insane, then so is Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Kristi Noem, Greg Bovino, and all of Trump’s Republican cheerleaders egging Trump on. Those guys think talking is unmanly.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Somerby understands those sexual politics or cultural climate in Trump’s administration. Nazis love this violent posturing. Kelly’s reaction makes these inadequate men feel tall and hairy. She’s playing out her assigned gender role which encourages this adolescent behavior. That doesn’t make Trump crazy. Mussolini and Hitler engaged in the same posturing.
Well said.
DeleteI'm still going with frontemporal dementia. Still has his sick thoughts, but increasingly losing his impulse control. Can't find it better explanation than that.
DeleteTrump seems to suffer from a variety of ailments.
DeleteThe dementia is likely playing a role but not a fundamental role.
The fundamental issue is more likely whatever caused Trump to be so corrupt from an early age.
"I doubt Somerby understands those sexual politics or cultural climate in Trump’s administration."
DeleteDo tell! We breathlessly await your superior erudition.
Leroy
Leroy wants us to know that his inability to communicate coherent arguments and his resulting consternation over those that present arguments that challenge his emotional comfort has resulted in him devolving into a silly troll.
DeleteGood to know.
"That doesn’t make Trump crazy. Mussolini and Hitler engaged in the same posturing."
ReplyDeleteMussolini and Hitler weren't crazy? What is your fucking problem?
Every fascist, from Mussolini, Hitler, and Trump through the techbros, and down to your grandfather who watches Fox News is crazy.
DeleteAnd none of these “crazy” fascist leaders was removed from power by pitying them. (That’s Somerby’s suggestion for dealing with Trump.) it’s also not clear that having a personality disorder, as Trump is supposed to have had, makes you “insane.” Maybe he’s deranged now. I don’t know.
DeleteInsanity is schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (especially in manic phase). Trump is evil not sick.
DeleteTrump has dementia.
DeleteHe's a Republican. How could anyone tell?
DeleteHa, great point, 7:52!
DeleteTrump today, 4/9:
ReplyDelete"I know why Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon - Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs. They're stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don't have what it takes, and they never did! They've all been thrown off Television, lost their Shows, and aren't even invited on TV because nobody cares about them, they're NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, and will say anything
necessary for some "free" and cheap publicity. Now they think they get some "clicks" because they have Third Rate Podcasts, but nobody's talking about them, and their views are the opposite of MAGA."
Who talks like this?
The same fucking asshole who said this a few days ago:
Delete"We want Greenland," Trump said. "They don't want to give it to us. And I said, 'bye, bye.'"
An idiot?
DeleteWho DOESN'T talk like this? Xi Jin Ping and Pope Leo. Will one of them get through to Trump? Eventually?
ReplyDeleteGame not recognizing game is a bad sign for the republic.
ReplyDeleteApparently Little Donny Chickenshit was offended that my Pope mentioned Jesus was for peace.
ReplyDeleteRepublican Christians do not care about Jesus, they think he is a woke pussy. All they care about Jesus is that he comes back and absolves them of any responsibility for the horrible things they do.
DeleteU.S. real GDP increased by 0.5% at an annual rate in Q4 2025
ReplyDeleteUSA! USA! Thank you President Trump.
"Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over a quarter of a century ago."
DeleteJ.D. Vance
Happy Confederate Surrender Day everybody! In a normal nation this would be a National Holiday. Says a lot about just how fucking awful most white people act.
DeleteAmericans' income didn't keep up with inflation in February. Real income, excluding transfer payments, fell 0.4% in February, and the three-month average was also negative.
ReplyDeleteUSA! USA! Thank you President Trump.
That's just the start. Wait until the Iran invasion + tariffs lag catches up.
Delete>output=pass_gas,
ReplyDelete>position=69
Have you tried the "Happy Baby" pose? It helps my wife in the middle of Yoga class to rip a nice one. I often join her.
DeleteThis sounds wonderful. I will have to try it.
DeleteThe Pentagon is obstructing reporters and defying an earlier court order that required it to restore access to credentialed journalists covering the Department of Defense (DOD), a U.S. judge in Washington ruled Thursday — a blow to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to limit media access.
ReplyDeleteHegseth doesn't have to listen to no fucking judge, because fuck you, what are you going to do about it.
That makes as much sense as following ICE's orders.
DeleteNo one is that stupid.
This judge's order is ridiculous. The President and the Secretary of War control our military, not some cherry-picked local Justice of the Peace. This unconstitutional order will be easily overturned. This is a worse violation of the Constitution than anything Trump did.
DeleteOur attack on Iran is a good example. If some reporter had been in the Pentagon, learned of the attack in advance and reported it, Iran would have been better prepared and American soldiers might have died.
That's right, dickhead, fuck the Constitution and the fucking 1st amendment. The Secretary of Rape knows better.
DeleteThe Constitution is clear. For all I know, it may be a good or a bad idea to allow reporters inside the Pentagon. I don't need to know. It's not my decision. The Constitution is based on Separation of Powers. According to the Constitution the Executive Branch controls the military, not the Judiciary.
DeleteThank you President Trump for protecting the Constitution against this judge's infraction.
The military swears an oath to the Constitution you imbecile
DeleteYou’re such a good obedient little Nazi, dickhead
Delete"...not some cherry-picked local Justice of the Peace."
DeleteFederal judge. But do go on.
But let's go with your incisive Constitutional interpretation for just a minute. If "separation of powers" is the correct call, then the judiciary should be able to order ICE to stay out of court houses, yes? Congress members should be able to fulfill their oversight duties without interference from DHS, right?
DeleteDavid is a foreign troll repeating talking points handed to him, so of course he is unaware that freedom of press is enshrined in the US Constitution - the only private sector profession explicitly protected in the Constitution. The judge's decision was the only one that judge could make, following the Constitution.
DeleteClever argument, Quaker. Perhaps the Judge does control the courtroom. Perhaps the judge can exclude ICE agents during a trial.
DeleteOTOH courtrooms are open to the public -- the Pentagon is not open to the public.
Fuck off Nazi Dave.
DeleteSpeaking of separation of powers, the constitution gives Congress the task of declaring war, not the president.
Delete"According to the Constitution the Executive Branch controls the military, not the Judiciary."
DeleteAccording to the Constitution, Congress levies taxes, declares war, and ratifies treaties.
"This judge's order is ridiculous. The President and the Secretary of War control our military, not some cherry-picked local Justice of the Peace. This unconstitutional order will be easily overturned. This is a worse violation of the Constitution than anything Trump did."
DeleteYou may be correct, you may not be correct. but one thing is for sure, no one should be ignoring a court order, or advocating for our government to ignore a court order, just because they think so. that's not the way our system works. I would expect you to know better Dave. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time and to listen to your side, but if we just allow government officials to ignore court orders, the whole system breaks down.
Federal district judges (including Judge Friedman, a presidentially appointed Article III judge - which ensures judicial independence from the political branches) have constitutional authority to decide cases and enter orders; their rulings are not those of a "Justice of the Peace" and are binding unless stayed or overturned on appeal.
DeleteRestoring journalists’ access does not cede control of the military to reporters; it affects transparency and press oversight, not command authority. The President and Defense Secretary retain constitutional command powers.
Courts routinely review executive actions for legality; an order requiring the DoD to follow the law or prior court rulings is a normal judicial check, not an unconstitutional usurpation of military control.
Comparing this ruling to unspecified alleged constitutional violations by others is rhetorical escalation, not a legal argument.
It is not clear how David deserves any "benefit of the doubt" when he so baldly and badly misrepresents even the most basic aspects of our systems and institutions.
Where were all these Nazis hatched?
DeleteThis country was just fine and dandy for 250 years without a fucking neo-nazi White Christian Nationalist barking commands to our free press.
What the fuck people, is that what you really want?
I believe the Supreme Court recently declared Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional.
DeleteShouldn't Hegseth refuse to obey an unconstitutional, illegal order from a judge?
DeleteDiC, Hegseth doesn’t get to decide what is unconstitutional. The courts do that.
DeleteThe first income tax was levied by Congress under the Lincoln (R) administration.
DeleteI fail to see how Quaker's argument is "clever", Republicans already reject judicial review in those cases, so if anything David can simply agree and restate the same claim.
David is saying that the executive has exclusive control over the military, including access decisions, and that courts can not second-guess those decisions, whereas Quaker assumes the opposite baseline, that courts have authority to enjoin executive actions that violate the law.
Quaker is trying to say be consistent, but this ignores David's narrow reading of the separation of powers and ignores David's false conflation of press access with military command.
I do not agree with David at all, but Quaker's response is weak.
2:19's response is more on target.
2:58, yes, they did after they inexplicably allowed the corrupt bastard to continue collecting the tariffs for almost a year, and fucking punted on the question of giving the money that King Orange was LYING about back to the people.
Delete“ Republicans already reject judicial review in those cases”
DeleteOf course they do, when they don’t like the outcome, ie, when it constrains their guy. But they support judicial review when a democrat is in office. They want it both ways. It’s a lawless argument.
Aw, heck! Slabby is handing out grades now?
DeleteMilitary orders are not inherently legal, whereas judge's orders are lawful and binding unless overturned.
DeleteIn the military, an individual service member has to make an immediate judgment upon receiving an order, whereas a judge's order comes from within a system and entails relatively lengthy deliberation.
A military service member must prevent atrocities in real time; a judge's order can be challenged through the legal system, but otherwise must be followed.
The military has codified this principle and reinforces it through training. In the military, if the order is unlawful, disobedience is not a crime.
This personal and immediate structure is unique to military orders. Outside of military orders, legality is primarily institutional, so no, the same principle does not apply to Hegseth.
You were probably trying your best Quaker, it just was not good enough. See me after class.
DeleteThis should not induce a knee jerk reaction of insults, but in your case it did, which is kind of telling. Just go straight to the Principal's office.
That the public has a right to know what the government is doing has to be squared with the idea that some government functions require secrecy.
The 1st Amendment gives the press a special role as a check on government power; it protects the right to expose but does not guarantee complete access.
Beyond the press, there are other mechanisms for transparency such as FOIA, Congressional oversight, Inspector Generals, whistleblower protections, etc.
It should go without saying that obviously credentialed press is different than the public.
In this specific case, invoking "the Pentagon is different from courts" does not do much analytical work, because the issue is not about secrets or security, it's about baseline access that already existed. It is a category mismatch. The ways in which the Pentagon is different from courts is not relevant in this case, so the comparison, while perhaps rhetorically convenient, is overextended, offers no meaningful explanatory power, and obscures more than it clarifies.
Furthermore, the government, particularly in this realm, has a poor history - from the Pentagon Papers to Iran Contra to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
@5:00 nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a judge's orders are lawful and binding unless overturned.
DeleteFurthermore IMO a ridiculous injunction from a Judge should not be obeyed. Great damage might ensue from delaying a legal and appropriate action. Talk about "No Kings." A random judge is not King of the Military.
Quaker in a Basement
DeleteSorry. Didn't read it.
DeleteIsn't the "press" simply asking for access to Pentagon press conferences, not for the Pentagon to spill their guts as to why US taxpayers have to spend hundreds of billions to keep Bibi and MBS happy? You people are weird
DeleteThis really confirms what others say about David being foreign, he does not seem to have a basic understanding of the US at all.
DeleteThe Constitution created the judiciary which then established, via cases like Marbury v Madison, that courts do in fact have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding rulings.
Courts don’t need a specific sentence in the Constitution saying their orders are binding, that’s inherent in having a judicial system that resolves cases. Since Marbury v. Madison, courts issue enforceable judgments, and parties are required to comply unless a higher court stays or overturns them.
Disobeying a court order is being in contempt of court.
Our court system resolves disputes with enforceable judgements, otherwise courts would merely be advisory bodies.
If officials could ignore orders they personally think are “ridiculous,” the rule of law wouldn’t function, every order would be optional.
The remedy is appeal, not refusal.
In the US, court orders must be complied with; they can be challenged through appeals, otherwise court authority would collapse and it would just be might makes right instead of law.
A judge's power is limited and reviewable, which is the opposite of a king. This judge was federally appointed, per the Constitution.
This judge's order has nothing to do with operational control or command decisions. Trying to say this judge is controlling the military or is king of the military is not just a category error, it is a non sequitur.
In reality, this order is about press access to a building the press has historically had access to. That’s well within a court’s role in resolving a legal dispute with the executive branch.
There are four conditions that should all be satisfied for an injunction to be granted. I don't think this injunction satisfies any of them, let alone all four:
Delete-- likelihood of success on the merits of their case,
-- they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction,
-- balance of hardships favors them,
-- prove that the injunction would not disserve the public interest.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=grounds+for+granting+injunction&atb=v426-1&ia=web
We have gotten accustomed to allowing judges to issue any injunction they feel like. We accept that it must be followed. But, this is tradition. It's not in the Constitution and it's not our laws.
Giving judges this much power is dangerous, because judges cannot be punished or removed for issuing an improper injunction.
@7:28. n other words, the Courts have the power to issue enforceable rulings because earlier Courts issued enforceable rulings saying they have this power.
DeleteNote especially the requirement about irreparable harm. I cannot think of any way in which a reporter will be irreparably harmed if military leaders talk to him outside the Pentagon building but not inside it. Why not wait until the case is actually heard and both sides have a chance to present evidence?
Go fuck yourself, you fascist freak
DeleteWith a rusty saw.
DeleteAy yi yi, David.
DeleteYou need to take a US 101 class.
You’re mixing up how the U.S. legal system actually works.
The Constitution doesn’t spell out every specific power in detail. It creates the framework, Congress passes laws under Article I, courts interpret and apply those laws under Article III, and over time precedent fills in how those powers operate. That’s not “tradition,” that’s the legal system functioning as designed.
Injunctions aren’t something courts invented out of thin air. They’re part of longstanding equity powers recognized since the founding and codified in federal law (for example, the Judiciary Act of 1789 and modern statutes like 28 U.S.C. 1651 All Writs Act). Courts issuing binding orders is how cases are resolved, otherwise courts would just be advisory bodies.
On your “circular reasoning” point, it’s not that courts have power because they said so. The Constitution created courts to decide cases, and deciding cases necessarily includes issuing enforceable judgments. Marbury v. Madison didn’t invent power out of nowhere, it articulated what it means to have a judiciary under the Constitution.
As for injunction standards, yes, courts consider likelihood of success, irreparable harm, etc. But whether those are met is decided by the judge and then reviewed on appeal. You don’t get to declare “the judge got it wrong, therefore the order is optional.” The remedy is appeal or a stay, not ignoring the ruling.
Your irreparable harm point also misses well-established law; courts have repeatedly held that loss of First Amendment rights, even temporarily, can qualify as irreparable harm. So “they can just talk outside the building” doesn’t answer the legal question if access itself is what’s being restricted.
And judges absolutely are not unaccountable. They can be reversed on appeal (which happens all the time), subject to judicial discipline, and in extreme cases impeached. The system corrects bad rulings through review, not by letting each party decide which orders to obey.
At the end of the day, your argument boils down to: if you personally think an injunction is wrong, it doesn’t have to be followed. That’s not how the rule of law works. If that were true, every losing party could ignore court orders, and the entire system would collapse.
Lordy, crack a book sometime.
@7:21 No. The press is asking to be allowed inside the pentagon building. They’re being excluded so won’t get information that should be kept secret.
DeleteDiC, freedom of speech and the press are in the first amendment. They are fundamental. Eventually, I’m sure the supreme court court will decide on this, thereby following the standard procedure of how these things are decided. They may agree with you. But you cannot in good faith argue that the secretary can simply ignore rulings he doesn’t like. Can you imagine your reaction if Biden’s secretary of defense simply ignored court rulings? You are such an ass.
Delete@9:03 - Thanks for your comment. You obviously know a lot about the subject. Still, I believe that the standards for injunctions are mostly created by judges rather than by legislatures. The procedures may be legislated, but the standards are judge-made.
DeleteYou probably recall the case just last year about, whether based on a single plaintiff who was resisting deportation, the judge could enjoin group of similar people, and if so, how wide a group. Could the injunction apply only to the specific plaintiff or to the entire district, the entire state, the whole country or worldwide? This was an important case. The standard was decided by the Court, not by the legislature, and certainly not by the constitution.
Your description of judicial accountability looks more hypothetical than real. How many judges have been subject to judicial discipline or impeached for issuing an unjustified injunction? I suspect the answer is close to zero, even though improper injunctions are common. E.g. a lot of anti-Trump injunctions were improper and so were reversed. More than half IIRC, Yet, none of the judges who issued the improper injunctions were disciplined or impeached.
“…. Improper injunctions are common…” go ahead and supply a statistic to support that claim. Or is that all it is, the opinion of a MAGAt?
Delete"I believe that the standards for injunctions are mostly created by judges rather than by legislatures. The procedures may be legislated, but the standards are judge-made."
DeleteThis is the stupidest statement on jurisprudence I've seen all day.
If you aren't telling Right-wingers to go fuck themselves with a rusty saw, you're doing it wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat time is Melania Trump's press conference, where she states that she was never a Russian plant which has access to the White House and the U.S.'s state secrets, scheduled for today?
ReplyDeleteThe DOJ (and when I say DOJ, understand we are referring to Trump's fucking lawyers) are still deciding whether and where she will commit suicide.
DeleteTrump's first wife (out of three), Ivana, was the daughter of a known KGB collaborator, soon after Trump married Ivana he started expressing an interest in being president, Trump oddly falsely claimed that Ivana competed in the Olympics - she did not, Ivana later credibly accused Trump of raping her giving a very detailed account that matches what other accusers have said, Ivana later died under mysterious circumstances falling down stairs in her own home yet having blunt force trauma to her abdomen not consistent with falling down stairs, Trump then unceremoniously dumped Ivana's body in a standalone grave in an isolated area of one of his golf courses for which he then tried to get a tax break for, Ivana's grave then remained ignored and unkempt and covered with weeds.
DeletePoor Melania, the fate that awaits her is likely tragic.
However, since Melania, Sweet Pea as some call her, spent a lot of time being pals with and hanging out with known sexual predators - Epstein and Maxwell (Dear G! Love, Melania) - it is hard to have any pity for her.
I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U?
Sounds like Ivana was a KGB honeypot, and she may have died as revenge for accusing Trump of raping her.
DeleteBros before hoes.
What we're down to as a country:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/10/iran-war-prediction-markets-white-house.html
It's the corruption, isn't it? From Bibi, to MBS, to Putin, to Orban, to Trump, to his Cabinet, to his scumbag SIL and Sons. They are all greasy fucks.
Delete"Catherine Rampell writes:
DeleteA LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GETTING RICH off the Trump presidency. Donald Trump himself tops the list, of course, but it also includes his kids and in-laws; other grifting nepo-babies; cabinet members (as well as their staff and children), senior aides; and other well-connected friends, investors, and firms.
You know who isn’t on that list?
You."
Fucking Nazis are always the most corrupt!
A rare TDH post, not attacking Dems.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives?
He's not feeling well.
DeleteSome, at the end of their time on Earth, stare down at that Lake of Fire and repent to avoid their likely fate, others double down.
ReplyDeleteTrump says he will resume the war soon if he doesn't get a deal that includes Iran giving up nukes. I don't believe him. I don't think he will resume the attacks in the near future.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump told The Post on Friday that US warships are being reloaded with “the best ammunition” to resume strikes on Iran if peace talks in Pakistan fail.
“We’re going to find out in about 24 hours. We’re going to know soon,” Trump said in a phone interview when asked if he thought the talks would be successful.
How many times do you have to be told, Iran doesn’t have nukes, never had nukes, you fucking ass. Trump will do what Bibi tells him to do
DeleteTrump is not negotiating with Iran, his team in Pakistan will be talking with "regional mediators".
DeleteIran already agreed to give up everything before the war started but Trump Kushner and Witkoff did not care because they wanted war. War, war, and more war. And Vance is no different, they are all bloodthirsty ghouls.
Trump is buying time to re-arm, and he is trying to save face, all the while playing pump and dump games to get richer.
A few days ago, Trump said he was fine with the 10 point plan Iran put out weeks ago. Then he flip flopped, per usual.
Iran isn't buying any of it, they are steady on their strategy, which is working well for them.
Trump should have viewed Iran as a possible ally, since Iran is opposed to nuclear weapons and has a relatively more civilized society than most of the countries in the region. But since Trump is motivated by ego and money, he instead allied with horrible people like Netanyahu and MBS.
In that region Saudi Arabia and Israel are our real enemies, remember the 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi, and Israel is a theocratic ethnostate engaging in apartheid and genocide.
The only thing keeping Netanyahu from being prosecuted for corruption is this war.
The only thing keeping Trump for being further prosecuted was him getting elected president.
MBS can avoid any consequences for his depravity, since he is the Despot in the Desert.
This may come as a surprise to you but we have all witnessed that what you believe is untethered to reality.
DeletePfff, David is aware his nonsense is untethered to reality, he does not care, he is not here to argue in good faith.
Delete"I don't believe him."
DeleteWhat tipped you off?
I read this NY Times interview with Ben Sasse, and at first I felt bad for the guy and his family and what he is going through, but then as the interview continued it became clear Sasse is just your run of the mill Christian Nationalist victimhood/grievance-loving right winger obsessed with hierarchy and dominance and out to attack anyone not right of center.
ReplyDeleteI suspect anyone that tormented by internal demons is going to have health problems; it is possible he could have avoided his fate if he was less consumed by hate, hate he deftly masks with his phony populism and regular guy act (the kind of stuff Bob used to go after). To be fair, he probably experienced things early in life that made it impossible for him to be in any other state of mind. He says he is coping by smugly hinting he is headed to heaven; Jesus, the lack of self awareness...
DeleteSasse was set up by DeSantis as president of University of Florida, a job that he had no credentials for other than that he was MAGA and his tenure promised to turn that university into a right wing bastion. He was ultimately outed by the student newspaper for his profligate spending of taxpayer dollars on lavish parties and hiring of $400k/yr consultants to help him do the job he was unqualified for. He spent 17.3 million dollars his first year as president compared with 5.6 million spent the last year of his predecessor. He was at odds with the board of trustees, and when he left, investigations into his spending were planned.