smock·ing
/ˈsmäkiNG/Submit
noun
decoration on a garment created by gathering a section of the material into tight pleats and holding them together with parallel stitches in an ornamental pattern.
I guess this definition could apply to this administration definitely using some tight pleats and parallel stitches.
Because a candidate’s personal contributions to the campaign are not limited, Individual-1 could have made those payoffs legitimate and beyond reproach simply by reporting them as campaign contributions. But no – he wanted that all hidden from public view after the Billy Bush grab 'em by the pussy debacle. Hoist by his own petard…
I am concerned with the result of the course(s) of action resulting in “Trump walking”.
In addition to laying down the fact that Trump answers to no law, there is, in addition, the harm to our country he will then inflict in at least three areas:
(1) His actions against us
(2) His bragging and cementing as (his) normalcy of his actions
(3) The resultant corruption which will be beyond imagination
There is a weird symmetry with the above horror and the horror of the results of climate change:
Contemplating both require a certain level of abstraction, imagination and social conscience and there are sectors of the population immune to this contemplation: those who use cynicism to deal with their fear and those who cannot connect sequences of events.
For years Trump has lied about this, and now he reverses course and… well, we’re all so used to his false initial denial strategy that it sort of just floats on by and we wait for tomorrow’s lies. If any other president had done it, of course, L’affaire Stormy and the lies that have followed it would have been the end.
Two days after angrily and insultingly denying Rex Tillerson’s claim that he was ignorant and/or dismissive of the law, Trump sends a tweet that confirms it. Wasn’t that inevitable?