USA Today: ‘Trump Isn’t Fit To Clean Obama’s Toilets’

And the fallout continues from this tweet:


That’s the President of the United States suggesting that a sitting Senator trades sexual favors for campaign contributions. As we detailed on Tuesday, this is a new low for Trump.

Furious at Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s decision to join Cory Booker of New Jersey and Jeff Merkley of Oregon (Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon later jumped on board) in calling for the President to resign in the wake of a public press conference by women who have accused him of sexual harassment, Trump decided the most prudent thing to do would be to say the most egregious thing he could think of on social media.


Here’s Gillibrand discussing the incident on Wednesday:

Of course this is also sour grapes about the #MeToo movement. And that, in and of itself, says a lot about Trump’s character. Here is a man who is actually upset that women who stand up against sexual harassment beat him out for the cover of TIME magazine.

The decidedly ill-advised tweet was met with an immediate backlash from all corners and in a true testament to just how absurd the American political scene has become, Gillibrand reportedly learned about the tweet while attending a bipartisan Bible study.

For her part, Elizabeth Warren called it what it most assuredly was: an attempt to “slut-shame” a Senator:


Well now, USA Today has penned what is easily the most scathing Op-Ed about the President by a mainstream outlet yet. You can read the whole piece below but this is the subhed:

A president who’d all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama’s presidential library or to shine George W. Bush’s shoes: Our view

Any questions? If so, read on…

Via USA Today’s Editorial Board

With his latest tweet, clearly implying that a United States senator would trade sexual favors for campaign cash, President Trump has shown he is not fit for office. Rock bottom is no impediment for a president who can always find room for a new low.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Tuesday dismissed the president’s smear as a misunderstanding because he used similar language about men. Of course, words used about men and women are different. When candidate Trump said a journalist was bleeding from her “wherever,” he didn’t mean her nose.

And as is the case with all of Trump’s digital provocations, the president’s words were deliberate. He pours the gasoline of sexist language and lights the match gleefully knowing how it will burst into flame in a country reeling from the #MeToo moment.

A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush.

This isn’t about the policy differences we have with all presidents or our disappointment in some of their decisions. Obama and Bush both failed in many ways. They broke promises and told untruths, but the basic decency of each man was never in doubt.

Donald Trump, the man, on the other hand, is uniquely awful. His sickening behavior is corrosive to the enterprise of a shared governance based on common values and the consent of the governed.

It should surprise no one how low he went with Gillibrand. When accused during the campaign of sexually harassing or molesting women in the past, Trump’s response was to belittle the looks of his accusers. Last October, Trump suggested that he never would have groped Jessica Leeds on an airplane decades ago: “Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you.” Trump mocked another accuser, former People reporter Natasha Stoynoff, “Check out her Facebook, you’ll understand.”  Other celebrities and politicians have denied accusations, but none has stooped as low as suggesting that their accusers weren’t attractive enough to be honored with their gropes.

If recent history is any guide, the unique awfulness of the Trump era in U.S. politics is only going to get worse. Trump’s utter lack of morality, ethics and simple humanity has been underscored during his 11 months in office. Let us count the ways:

  • He is enthusiastically supporting Alabama’s Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, who has been accused of pursuing – and in one case molesting and in another assaulting – teenagers as young as 14 when Moore was a county prosecutor in his 30s. On Tuesday, Trump summed up his willingness to support a man accused of criminal conduct: “Roy Moore will always vote with us.”
  • Trump apparently is going for some sort of record for lying while in office. As of mid-November, he had made 1,628 misleading or false statements in 298 days in office. That’s 5.5 false claims per day, according to a count kept by The Washington Post’s fact-checkers.
  • Trump takes advantage of any occasion – even Monday’s failed terrorist attack in New York – to stir racial, religious or ethnic strife. Congress “must end chain migration,” he said Monday, because the terror suspect “entered our country through extended-family chain migration, which is incompatible with national security.” So because one man – 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. who came from Bangladesh on a family immigrant visa in 2011 –  is accused of attacking America, all immigrants brought to this country by family are suspect? Trump might have some credibility if his criticism of immigrants was solely about terrorists. It isn’t.  It makes no difference to him if an immigrant is a terrorist or a federal judge. He once smeared an Indiana-born judge whose parents emigrated from Mexico. It’s all the same to this president.
  • A man who clearly wants to put his stamp on the government, Trump hasn’t even done his job when it comes to filling key government positions that require Senate confirmation. As of last week, Trump had failed to nominate anyone for 60% of 1,200 key positions he can fill to keep the government running smoothly.
  • Trump has shown contempt for ethical strictures that have bound every president in recent memory.  He has refused to release his tax returns, with the absurd excuse that it’s because he is under audit.  He has refused to put his multibillion dollar business interests in a blind trust and peddles the fiction that putting them in the hands of his sons does the same thing.

Not to mention calling white supremacists “very fine people,” pardoning a lawless sheriff, firing a respected FBI director, and pushing the Justice Department to investigate his political foes.

It is a shock that only six Democratic senators are calling for our unstable president to resign.

The nation doesn’t seek nor expect perfect presidents, and some have certainly been deeply flawed. But a president who shows such disrespect for the truth, for ethics, for the basic duties of the job and for decency toward others fails at the very essence of what has always made America great.


Leave a Reply to Durwood M. DuggerCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 thoughts on “USA Today: ‘Trump Isn’t Fit To Clean Obama’s Toilets’

  1. Some of the problems that Trump addresses are real problems. It’s his solutions that are like him – simple minded, grossly flawed, moronic and obviously dysfunctional.

    I could detail some of Trump and Republican talking points that are significant problems for the US at large that need to be addressed with comprehensive, efficient and legal solutions (not going to happen with the current Republican leadership crop). However, in this current case of Trump siding with Moore and Moore’s subsequent narrow loss – I have to honor one of my previous commitments to the rest of humanity. That commitment being – that if I ever saw Trump on fire and burning brightly as he is now, I wouldn’t take the time or effort – to piss on him with the intent to dampen or put that fire out.

    1. LOL!! and I applaud your commitment to your duty! thanks Dugger 🙂

      and Pete – I predict his disrespect and public comments picking on the girls will be his downfall! 🙂

      and Marty – I concur with Curt, Amen brother! 🙂

      1. Did anyone see the Oversight Committee hearing today with Rod Rosenstien? Where most of the Republican knuckleheads in their effort to Obstruct Justice with Hannity, Fox News, Wall Street Journal and other Republicans by causing Mueller to be fired, made the case that, because Mueller’s prosecutors made contributions to Clinton and others they should be disqualified for having conflicts?

        Here’s Democrat Ted Lieu questioning Rosenstien in his effort to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument:

        The flip side of course, and the irony, is that if Republicans are correct, the entire hierarchy of the AG’s office and the FBI should be disqualified for having conflicts if they sought to investigate Clinton!

        1. Mr. Lieu did a calm and orderly and logical job — basically showing these men were appointed by repub presidents and these men have high standards of honesty and reliability and these men made sizeable donations to campaign candidates, which they have a right to make. Problem is Hannity and his disgusting comrades want to protect the man who even they must know is a cheat and a liar so they are willing to lower themselves to barely human and do everything they can to try and twist and tweak facts in order to try their best to demean or destroy those same men who have established records of decency and moral standards unlike the creep they are trying to protect.

          My question is why would they do that? Are they that gullible or stupid to think that the rest of the U.S. population is wrong – about 73% or more – and their maybe quarter percent knows best? How about the hard evidence that proves their guy is a liar or a cheat or a failure? And furthermore, how do people like Hannity find employment in front of cameras with a worldwide reach, spew their garbage and stay on the air? What is wrong in our country that we cannot get rid of that kind of trash?

          Broadcast Standards and Practices which is responsible for the moral, ethical, and legal implications of the program that networks air should pay more attention to this trash instead of who wins how much money of some dumb game show!

          1. Murphy: “My question is why would they do that?”

            To obstruct the investigation and protect Trump and co-conspirators from further investigation and prosecution for crimes he and they engaged in.

            Putin is a neo-communist. Trump is obviously a neo-communist supporter and may be one himself. Many Republican congressmen appear to have zero problem with Trump’s affinity for neo-communism so I infer that some or many of them, according to their conduct, are neo-communist supporters or are neo-communist themselves that have infiltrated congress.

            Perhaps there needs to be a Special Counsel appointed to investigate Congress and the Executive branch for such infiltration? Of course, we should make sure they have contributed to both parties, and only the Republican party.

          2. Well, Marty, my fault for asking a rhetorical question with a lawyer hanging around! 🙂 You know I know they did that to throw fuel on a fire to make people go apeshit and create havoc and hopefully arouse a demand for Mueller to be removed and shut down the investigation — as I said as a follow up to that question – do they think we are that gullible or stupid — wanna take a shot at answering that question? hahaha! I doubt at this late date they will get more idiots to join his base, in fact seems like a few have abandoned that base.

            Regarding your neo-communist comments – agree with you on that. But I don’t think trump is smart enough to understand he has communist ideals. He is more the King type. Those morons that follow him and kiss his ass and support him so they can keep their cushy little jobs, easy money — some of them chase a few women and then have the audacity to pay them off, $84,000 to one, from taxpayer funds! And get away with it until we find out make a stink about it. Some of the smarter ones do realize trump is a dangerous man to “lead” this Nation but want to don’t rock the boat for a variety of reasons.

            So, how about you take a shot at my other question about how to get rid of the trash like Hannity, maybe via the Networks or Standards and Practices. Any ideas along those lines? I would sign a petition to have a Special Counsel investigate Congress and Executive members – we would restock under new rules and guidelines too!

          3. “What is wrong in our country that we cannot get rid of that kind of trash”
            Just find out the name of the guy he’s schtupping and your problems are over.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints