The human body is the best picture of the human soul

"The human body is the best picture of the human soul." – Ludwig Wittgenstein


As you know by now, I'm a speech and language person, and I've written extensively on these pages about the Berder King's disordered speech and language, as well as his dangerous rhetoric. But they say that up to 93% of communication is non-verbal. Let's pivot to the more subtle, but still incredibly powerful, non-verbal communication. What is SCROTUS is communicating with his body language?

Interpreting body language is arguably more subjective than speech and language. The "morphology" of body language is more subtle, more fleeting, and many non-verbal aspects are combined, such as: body posture, facial expressions, eye movement, use of space, hand gestures, touching, as well as "tone of voice," which itself is a mishmash of intonation, vocal volume, tempo, and pitch. Despite the subtleties, most of us can interpret the nonverbal message.

Today I look at the purely non-verbal, leaving out the voice characteristics. What is his body telling us?

IN GENERAL

In general – is it a surprise? – 45's body language portrays confidence, large ego, spotlight-loving, and wanting power and control. This is evidenced by the puffed out chest, the hand gestures, the taking up space (looming behind Hillary Clinton, for example, and spread-leg sitting posture), his resting bitch face. There's a lot of analysis out there: here's a summary from The Sun and another one from CNN.

puffed out chest: power, confidence

Trevor Noah and the Daily Show looked at his totally not weird way of standing:

Looming, taking up space, and close proximity: power, dominance, intimidation

Shoving someone out of the way to be front and center: power, ego, dominance. And, may I add, pure asshole-ness:

THE STEEPLE, HIGHLIGHTING HIS MAN-SPREAD

His go-to posture, especially in photo-ops with world leaders, is a "steeple" combined with man-spreading. We see it over and over. The steeple has been explained as a power gesture, indicating confidence and leadership. The man-spreading is an overt display of dominance. It's a way of both exerting power by taking up space, and displaying sexuality. Baby Fingers really sits no other way.

Here he is winking at Putin and using the "steeple" hand position signals power and confidence.

Dr. Jack Brown* asserts that the "president" uses steepling so much and for such prolonged times that "it backfires and very rapidly becomes hyper-alpha, arrogant, condescending and overlaps with some components of disgust and contempt."

Given that the steepling is almost always combined with man-spreading and is always near his crotch, I have my own theory of the meaning he wants to convey. Given 45's excessive overt sexuality, i.e., proclivity for sexual assault meant to dominate women, I think he is broadcasting his junk. He forms his hands as a target, or a telescope, and places them just there -- over and over and over again. You won't see him sitting with a world leader, or really anyone, without steepling as he is man-spreading.

Or, this triangle posture could be something darker. From Medium.com. Could he be in cahoots with the Dark Lord?

Man-spreading indicates power and dominance, asserting his role as alpha male. Whenever he is steepling, he is man-spreading, as you can see above. But in the photos below, he really spreads 'em.

I noticed that in a recent meeting with Emmanuel Macron, they seemed to be trying to out-spread each other.

But even his man-spreading and steepling belie a small, small man. Here's this gem of TRUMP and Emmanuel Macron. A picture is worth a thousand words.

And here is his first meeting with President Obama. Who has the power and confidence here?

And let's contrast Obama sitting with world leaders. What message is he sending? *sigh* I miss Obama!

HIS BABY HANDS

Here's a little on the tiny-hand gestures that he uses. Again, most of his hand gestures try to signal confidence, power, and control.




Here's a little hand-gesture body language midterm exam for you, from a Columbia University grad student!

And speaking of hands.....


THE HANDSHAKE

His trademark grab-and-yank handshake portrays dominance and power. Watch:

There are more handshake videos here and here.

He's obviously trying to – literally – get the upper hand. He just comes off as an asshole. He practically yanks their arm off, and then adds that little condescending hand pat. Ick. I'd go wash up right away. But I love it when leaders come prepared and don't let him get away with it.


THE SNIFFS

He sniffs a lot! Hardly a speech goes by when he isn't sniffing or at least inhaling sharply thorough his nose.

Sniffing as a body-language tell is not easy to decipher.

It could indicate disgust or displeasure. This communication blogger asserts that a person sniffs when he is being deceitful, as the blood vessels of the nose dilate, making them itch. This body language expert from Denver asserts that sniffing is a form of aggression and is a sign that an attack is going to happen (physical or verbal). Could be all of the above with SCROTUS. Or something else, perhaps physiological. A chronic allergy? Or, could be drug use such as cocaine. This last would help explain a lot of his other behaviors.


JOURNALISTS

TЯUMP's body language -- as well as his verbal language -- telegraphs his contempt and disrespect for journalists, especially women of color. We don't need him to telegraph his contempt, however. His verbal language very clearly – and dangerously – conveys his hatred and contempt for the press. Here is an excellent analysis by Dr. Jack Brown* on 45's interactions with journalists.


FAMILY

His body language with Melania tells an interesting story. In the beginning, they both looked happy and relaxed with each other. They lean in to each other, and there is obviously intimacy illustrated by their body positions and touching. Later on, it's her body language that tells the story of their marriage.

1999, before his divorce from Marla was final

Year 2000

2003

Then, Melania starts looking uncomfortable. (2004)

and fast forward to the last three years:

At a rally, 2016. WTF kind of "kiss" is this?

As they arrived at the White House for the peaceful transition of power, he broadcast a clear message to his wife and the world:

At the inauguration ceremony, January 20, 2017

2017

Here's a little compilation of her hand-swats (followed by more on his freakish handshakes).




and here's Stephen Colbert and the Late Show's take on it:

Read more about the non-verbals between Don the Con and Melania here.

Though the body language is pretty clear, his words gave away a little more when he said, in remembering the shooting that injured Rep. Steve Scalise, "[Scalise’s wife] cried her eyes out when I met her at the hospital that fateful day … I mean not many wives would react that way to tragedy, I know mine wouldn’t.”


IVANKA

Probably the most disturbing body-language evidence comes from photos of Donny and his daughter Ivanka. There is no shortage of evidence of the Molester-in-Chief communicating lust and desire toward Ivanka, both in words and body language. I am really uncomfortable seeing these photos. I apologize if they are upsetting to my readers.

Add the creepy words he has used to describe his desire for her, and you have a very disturbing picture indeed. Here's a video that reviews some of this.

And then there was this photo last June, taken on a tour of Winston Churchill's war rooms. It looks like something from a horror film.

You don't need to be an expert in body language to read this creepy photo, but self-proclaimed expert Jack Brown* breaks it down on Medium.com.


THAT WHICH IS MISSING

What is missing from his body language: genuine joy. His smiles look as though he is forcing a dookie. I don't think I've seen him genuinely happy in the last three years, except maybe at the Nationals World Series game, when he was genuinely happy. Until he wasn't.

In the end, we have a tiny man trying to be a big man. Seems all of his body language is just an attempt at power and intimidation. He imagines that this is how a powerful man looks and acts, and he tries to act that way. In reality he's a shadow of a man, trying desperately to be admired and feared. He's become a caricature of himself. He's just a small, small man. Sad.



*A note: I research extensively for my blog. I try to quote to least-biased, factual sources. Dr. Jack Brown is a self-proclaimed body language expert. He has written online extensively, and what he writes makes sense, but I don't see any credentials for him, except that his "Doctor" honorific reflects his being an ophthalmologist. He publishes on Twitter and is quoted in left-biased sites, some with questionable accuracy, so I’m wary of using him. Take his stuff with a grain of salt.

I want to protect the integrity of my blog. I may be as biased as hell but I use factual sources.

Thanks, as always, for reading.


Now go.... #Resist!

Merry Impeachmas!

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." – Thomas Jefferson

No silent night for us. We mobilized, we protested, we formed a blue wave, we voted, we told our representatives what we wanted, and last Wednesday, we impeached the 45th President* of the United States. Just in time for Christmas!

As some brilliant internetter said, it's "Treason's Greetings"

The Berder King (thanks, SR Anne for the nickname!) has done many crimes and many immoral acts over the last three years, but we got him on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his strong-arm scheme in Ukraine.

What's next? A trial in the Senate. But it's not at all clear what that will look like, or when it will happen. The conclusion is foregone, however: acquittal.

The impeachment itself is analogous to a criminal indictment. An investigation was completed, witnesses testified, documents were attempted to be gathered, and charges were brought. The next stage corresponds to a criminal trial, where the defendant brings a defense. Members of the House are the managers in the trial, acting as prosecutors; the president mounts a defense; the Senate acts as a jury. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oversees the proceedings. It's really a remarkable event. The impeachment of a president brings all three branches, including both houses of Congress, together in one room at one time to hash out the issue.

But it's not a criminal trial, and the procedures are not well defined – actually not at all defined – in the Constitution. The Constitution's only instructions are (spelling and punctuation original):

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. 

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

As for punishment, it's definitely not like a criminal trial. Punishment is the removal from office and the disqualification from holding any other federal office, though the Constitution specifically does not preclude future criminal indictment:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So, now the articles of impeachment go to the venerable halls of the Senate, where they will be met by sober men with the gravity that the elevated office and the serious charges warrant.

Bwahahahahaha! Who am I kidding? Did we forget who is in charge of the United States Senate? None other than marble-mouthed obstructionist from Kentucky, Senator McCancel!

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McTurtle, has clearly said, in front of cameras: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can. We have no choice but to take [the impeachment trial] up, but we will be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate.”

That's concerning enough as it is, but wait! There's more! McConnell does not want to allow any witnesses. Huh? A trial without witnesses? He wants a speedy proceeding. Let's just get to the vote to acquit and move on. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has requested the following witnesses: Robert Blair, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff; Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff; John Bolton, former national security adviser; and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget. TЯUMP disallowed all those folks from testifying in front of the House, but it's still important that we hear from them. We want to hear from them – even 60% of Republicans want to hear from them. The witnesses know stuff.

It's up to the the Majority Leader and the rest of the Senate to make the rules for the trial and define the standard of proof. They get to make the rules and act as jurors. Hmmmmm. But don't discount Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives. They are very much part of the impeachment trial. With the Representatives becoming the managers of the trial, and the House having control of the articles themselves, the House under Speaker Pelosi has power.

And power, she has.

The brilliant Nancy Pelosi is again bringing her amazing political prowess to the ball game. She has decided to delay sending the articles to the Senate until she is satisfied that there will be a fair trial. Harvard Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe wrote an opinion piece outlining this very situation. In our lofty Democratic Republic, the public has a right to observe a fair and open trial, even (especially?) when it is opposed by the accused. And until the rules are more clearly established to ensure such a fair trial, Speaker Pelosi is right to withhold progressing the articles. I look forward to watching her work. She is da boss.

Chief Justice Roberts's role may turn out to be an integral part of the trial, as the Senate is being wonky about the rules of engagement.

How might his role play out? If witnesses are deemed unnecessary by the Senate, the House managers can appeal to the Chief Justice for a ruling. He can issue a ruling – but is not required to do so. And he may rule in favor of the managers. The ruling is not binding; the Senate can overturn his decision by a simple majority vote. Doing this might be politically risky, though; frankly, it's imprudent to overturn a ruling by the freaking Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Roberts may yet bring a bearing of fairness and solemnity to the trial. One can hope.

So, it may get interesting. If those witnesses are allowed, it could very well be all over for 45. They know damning information. And his best bet would be to resign before there can be a vote to remove him from office. If the trial ends in acquittal, as most predict it will, he won't be removed from office, but he gets to keep the IMPEACHED mark on his record for eternity.

What could also happen: the House could keep investigating these and other matters. We don't yet know the full story, and information continues to drip out (for example, we learned today that emails show 45 asked about the aid for Ukraine a month before the July 25 phone call). There is no provision for a one-time impeachment and done. If he keeps doing bad things, the House could conceivably impeach him again.

More and more people and entities are calling for his removal, even those from the far right. Former Republican Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, implores the members of the GOP to do dig deep and the right thing. The right-leaning National Review states he meets four tests for impeachment. The evangelical Christian publication Christianity Today also called for his removal. This last one is especially jaw-dropping, and predictably, the publication was on the receiving end of hate tweets from 45, who called the publication "far left" and said in his third-grade voice, "[Christianity Today] knows nothing about reading a perfect transcript of a routine phone call..." Gads. It never ends.

Anyway, it's not clear when the trial that will decide his fate will start. For now, Congress is in recess until Tuesday, January 7, 2020. Nuttin' will be resolved until then. The Whitewash House does not get a recess. He will run unfettered, doing Putin's bidding, every day until he leaves office.

The danger to our country does not end until that day. And the danger may be growing, as it appears he is becoming more unhinged.

Yale forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee has sounded another alarm about 45's mental state and the dangers that he poses. Lee takes a look at the letter that IMPOTUS (thanks for the nickname, George Conway!) sent to Nancy Pelosi. First, Lee "translated" the letter into the underlying, subconscious message it is telegraphing, and then he sounded a warning about the bigger danger, that of the masses sharing in his psychosis. It's a sobering read.

Ms. Magazine is also sounding a warning. Justine Andronici writes from the perspective that 45 is an abuser, and the nation is his victim. It is an especially dangerous time for us, as an abuser is at his most dangerous at the time of attempted separation. I also wrote recently about his abusive tendencies and how we can cope while we attempt to separate.

We cannot accept these behaviors as normal, and we must not turn away! We have got to pull back the curtain and see this man for who he truly is. If we don't, we are helping him destroy what we hold dear. We must continue our path of separation from this man. It's imperative that we do so.

#RESIST!!


And finally, here is an Impeachmas rhyme written by Frank Bruni of the New York Times.


.......and to all, a goodnight. 

The rottenness of his conduct

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." – Thomas Jefferson


Impeachment happens tomorrow! Justice will be brought to the rotten conduct.

It was just one week ago that the articles of impeachment were drafted by the Intelligence Committee and sent to the Judiciary Committee, who debated the articles at the end of last week.

There was nothing new during the debates. Each member got to talk for five minutes at a time, for many times. They started on Wednesday evening and debated the whole next day, well into Thursday night. Chairman Nadler finally concluded the debate at 11pm on Thursday. They debated for 14 hours. I listened to some of it and learned new committee markup terminology. There were many motions to "strike the last word" which is just parliamentary talk for "(technically) take out one word from the amendment being debated and talk for five minutes about whatever I want to." And there was lots of parliamentary politeness. "As my friend on the other side said..." and "I thank the gentlelady..." when you know they really wanted to put their thumbs in each others' eyes.

The next morning, Friday December 13, the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – and move them to the full House.

During the debate, the Democrats were impassioned about their duty to protect and defend the Constitution, pointing out many damaging aspects of 45's scheme, not the least of which that there will remain threats to our free and fair elections if he is allowed to continue unfettered. The GOP continued to screech protestations about the process and the fact that he shouldn't be impeached because the economy is doing so darn well.

And screech they did. As you know, I'm a political addict, and I listened as much as I could. But when the screeching started, I found myself turning the knob on the radio. I had to talk myself into turning it back and listening, because it is my duty. I had to force myself to listen while trying to keep my blood pressure in check.

Turns out it's their very strategy. Deflect, scream, complain, scream, smear, scream, deceive, and scream. They count on Americans turning away in disgust. As for me, any shred of esteem that is left for the GOP just gets worn away with each appearance of one of these howler monkeys.

Ahead of tomorrow's vote, GOP Senators have proclaimed that they will dishonor their oath that they will take ahead of the trial. Their oath, prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, will be: “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

Both Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham have stated that they have no intention of fulfilling their oath. Sen. Graham was pretty clear: “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly. I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Sen. McConnell said, “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can. We have no choice but to take [the impeachment trial] up, but we will be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate.”

So much for being impartial jurors. Read more about it in The Atlantic.

Joel Pett 

One thing not to forget: Chief Justice John Roberts will be presiding over the trial. He will, I hope, lend an air of solemnity to the proceedings and not let the GOP turn it into a sham.

Many individuals and entities across the country have endorsed impeachment. More than 700 legal scholars and historians have signed a letter urging the House to impeach TЯUMP. They warn about the danger to our democracy by allowing this man to trample the Constitution and to act as a monarch.

Several newspapers' editorial boards have endorsed impeachment, including our own Los Angeles Times, which writes, "(there is) overwhelming evidence that Trump perverted U.S. foreign policy for his own political gain. That sort of misconduct is outrageous and corrosive of democracy. It can’t be ignored by the House, and it merits a full trial by the Senate on whether to remove him from office."

A group of centrist Democrats came out as supporting impeachment. These folks are mostly freshmen members whose districts flipped blue and elected them but have a strong Republican constituency. They risk their seats but are following their consciences. But that Republican members of the House and Senate should have such courage.

The Judiciary Committee released a 658-page report outlining all of the evidence against 45. You can read it here, if you wish.

And on the eve of the historic vote, the Lunatic-in-Chief sent a six-page letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was a six-page-long Twitter tirade, complete with incoherent rants, smears, wild accusations, falsehoods, deflections, and victimhood. The letter has been described as "unhinged," "scathing," "sick," "wild, false and misleading," "bizarre and frightening," and "insane." Here is the letter, annotated by the Washington Post.

Stephen Colbert takes a look at the letter:



And so, tomorrow the full United States House of Representatives will debate for a few hours and then, they will vote to impeach the 45th president of the United States of America.

I let my representative know how I feel. Have you?

"A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves." – Grover Cleveland

#Resist!

Words are the physicians of the mind diseased.

"Words are the physicians of the mind diseased." – Aeschylus


...and Speech-Language Pathologists get to figure it all out.

I've written extensively here about 45's disordered speech and language, and during the past few weeks we've gotten some new data points of the speech and language disorders that the "president" is experiencing. I'm more and more firmly convinced of a diagnosis of mulitinfarct dementia.

This man talks a lot. Speech is a Speech-Language Pathologist's lifeblood. Lots of data here! We see that his language is becoming emptier and emptier, a hallmark of language in dementia. He talks a lot but says very little. There were many more examples of his bizarro language, too. Things that don't make sense; words and concepts mixed up; lies and confabulations. And his intermittent dysarthria – a sign of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), or mini strokes – gives it (multi-infarct dementia) away.

I think he is experiencing multiple TIAs. The ones that we see, those that cause the intermittent slurring and motor speech programming, are the bigger ones, but TIAs can occur without noticeable symptoms. Add enough of them together, and a dementia can develop.

First let me say that I'm kinda tickled that my political geekiness has intersected with my speech geekiness cuz I get to geek out majorly and teach my readers a little bit about disordered speech, language, and cognition!

You may remember the terms dysarthria, apraxia, paraphasia, confabulation. I've shown you examples before, and we also often see empty speech and disorganized language with DJT. To refresh you:

Dysarthria is (loosely) a motor weakness disorder. The articulation muscles are weak or uncoordinated and the sounds aren't formed precisely. The person with dysarthria sounds slurred. I often hear patients say, "People think I'm drunk."

Apraxia is a motor programming disorder. The sounds come out mixed up. Maybe a later-occurring sound comes early in the word, or syllables are transposed.

Paraphasias are word substitutions. There are semantic paraphasias, where a closely-related word in meaning is substituted, such as chair for table. And there are phonetic paraphasias, where a different phoneme is substituted, such as label for table. Phonetic paraphasias can look like apraxic errors.

Confabulation is a made-up story, believed to be true. It's not a lie per se, as the person believes it to be true. There is no intention to deceive.

All of them are signs of a neurological problem.

We have a lot of new samples since I last wrote about the subject of speech and language disorders in September. Let's look at some recent ones, shall we?

He had a big MAGA rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania last week. His rallies are where he's at his most basic (base) self. He's relaxed, in his element, unfettered .... and unhinged. Here is the whole speech, but thanks to a twitter user, I'll look at some individual clips below. Your stomach will thank Aaron Rupar from Vox.

To be clear, this rally illustrates much of what is wrong with this ugly man. He is at his slimiest here. In thus post, I won't address his lies and his dangerous rhetoric during this speech. But here is Aaron Rupar's article from Vox, who also supplied the tweets with pieces of video to illustrate. There is much to be said about the content, but for our purposes, I'm just looking at the neurological signs.


L


Here are some examples of his slurring his words during his speech in Hershey. Dysarthric errors abound.

Trump, slurring, trashes Christopher Wray. "You have great people in the FBI, but not in leadership. You have not good people in leadership." pic.twitter.com/ZeSh7hLgHv

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2019

Trump is slurring heavily pic.twitter.com/uctkzDG29q

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2019

Trump's slurring is more noticeable than normal pic.twitter.com/bt08y9UafD

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2019

Get a load of this slurry Trump rant about how he's saving marriages pic.twitter.com/rp0Rh1E3W5

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2019

One that Rupar didn't link to was at this. Listen to it (video starts there). It's so slurred that it is unintelligible.



The transcript reads, "And then they announce there was no bias." I had to go back to the transcript to figure it out.

Back in August at a Florida rally, he gave us this gem.

What’s a sock rocket? pic.twitter.com/q8enw9uPgP

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) November 27, 2019

This one is more of an example of apraxia. In this case, the phrase he wanted was "stock market" but his mouth formed, "sock rocket." The sounds were mixed up a bit. The /t/ of stock was dropped and the /r/ of market came too early.

You notice that he realizes he said the wrong thing, he stopped with an interjection and then said "stock market" again, like he was wrestling a lion to the ground. He often has this pattern when he makes a mistake and he catches it. Watch for it.

Here is another set of examples from August. Dysarthria and apraxia both abound in this speech:

"Ubsurd," "Armed Forca," Appliculble," "Obstulcles" -- Trump had a hard time pronouncing a number of words on Wednesday pic.twitter.com/1HLRO1i5Xd

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 21, 2019

Though his rallies are where we find his most natural speech and language, given that he is relaxed and in his element, we should perhaps be more concerned about his more "presidential" appearances, when he is supposed to be restrained and cogent. Oh, who am I kidding? We should be concerned about it all.

This stuff came out of his mouth just last week.

Trump: "Right now in a number of states the laws allow a baby to be born from his or her mother's womb in the ninth month. It is wrong, it has to change."

Trump says it's wrong for babies to be born in the ninth month...WTAF is this idiot talking about? https://t.co/L0Zlea3Npw

— Polly Sigh (@dcpoll) December 7, 2019

This is a classic paraphasia. It could be a semantic paraphaia (he meant aborted) or a phonetic paraphasia (he meant torn; though torn for born could also be semantic). In any case, his brain chose the word born. This is disordered language, folks. Just one of many examples.


His ramblings on FAUX News are a treasure trove of non-sensical, empty speech. He had a phone-in on November 22.




During the November 22 phone-in, he said this: "So -- so here's the thing, we have so many -- regardless of what's coming out, OK, the information that we have now is beyond belief already. But what they have coming out, I hear, is historic." Normal people do not talk like this. This is disorganized, empty speech.

He called attorney John Durham "Bull Durham" during the phone-in ramble. What kind of error? Paraphasia.

In talking about Crowdstrike, he caught himself: "Which is a country – which is a company..." Paraphasia.

"I do want always corruption...." Fruedian slip! And disordered syntax.

"And if she [Elizabeth Warren] took down the wall … You need the wall. You know, they want to have drones. They want to have drones flying around, up and down and this and that. It’s all just a waste of money. Other than we have drones flying to see if anybody’s trying to break through the wall, because if you have a bulldozer or if you have heavy blow torches and things, you can break through. We have, the wall is electrified so that if anyone touches it, we know exactly what’s happening and we can get there within minutes. Now we built that-" Language organization problem; confabulation or lies.

"But look, the Republican party has never been more unified, both the Senate and the House. Mitch, Lindsey, I could name 20 names up there. I could name … they have never had … look, we won 196 to nothing. That never happens. I always say, the Democrats are lousy politicians, they have lousy policy, but they stick together and they’re vicious. [crosstalk 00:26:46] They’re more vicious, frankly. But the Republicans, they have a tendency, they break up. They don’t … the Republicans, I have never seen anything like it, they’re sticking together." Language organization problem.


Last month, he claimed the Democrats have a War on Thanksgiving. Just weird.




It's possible that this is an example of a paraphasia. Perhaps he was going to talk about the war on Christmas but accidentally substituted Thanksgiving, and then doubled- and tripled-down after the erroneous word-choice? Or maybe it's just a run-of-the-mill TRUMP lie/disinformation/distraction.

And this shit. Flushing 10 to 15 times?



For this one, I suspect more naiveté of the real world, disdain for science, hatred for regulation, compounded by his wont for aggrandizement and disinformation. I peg this one as a classic, non-impaired Trumpism. Much of that is apparent in all of his ramblings, as well.

But these two examples could also be confabulation, which is, you recall, conflating the truth with the brain's made-up imaginings. Confabulation is different from lies in that there is no intent to deceive, and the matter is usually inconsequential. Of course, nothing that any president of the United States, including this one, says is inconsequential. That's part of our problem.

Or maybe he has run out of regular lies and has to go all out.

Dave Granlund

So what do we make of all of this?

Neurological disease? Mental health issues? Lies? I've been of the opinion that it is a little of all of the above. We know he is a life-long con man. He lies as often as he breathes. And if there is something organic going on, neurological or psychiatric, then it's all jumbled into this bizarre discourse. He is losing his grip on reality in any case. 45 needs medical attention.

And last month, he seemed to seek it. He made an unscheduled Saturday afternoon trip to Walter Reed Hospital. By all accounts, it was far from a routine visit. This hospital visit is suspicious for many reasons. His doctor traveled with him in his limo, for one. This is highly unusual. All the tests that he supposedly underwent could've been done at the Whitewash House. Though 45 claimed the he "began phase one of my yearly physical," physical exams don't work that way. And they aren't done months ahead of schedule; his previous physical was just nine months prior.

I betcha anything that one of his TIAs was a little bigger and longer-lasting than the others and he went to get checked out. I wager the TIA resolved, as they do, and he refused any further workup. He was out within an hour.

The report from the doctor to the media didn't specify what all tests were done, just "specifically, he did not undergo and specialized cardiac or neurologic evaluations." Hmmmmm. Because they weren't warranted or because he refused them? It's all fishy.

The anonymous author of  the book "A Warning" noted that “he stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity.” The president* “also can’t remember what he’s said or been told" according to the author. “Trump genuinely doesn’t remember important facts.”

The observable behaviors make it crystal clear that something is going on and has been for a long time. It could be multi-infarct dementia, frontotemporal dementia (my top two guesses), syphilitic dementia, or another kind of brain disease. People have speculated about drug use or a serious personality disorder like malignant narcissism. Something else could be going on. Most likely it is a combination of factors. He's a deeply flawed man with something neurological on top of it, and the compounded effect is becoming terrifying.

In the end, it doesn't matter. He needs to step down from the office of the presidency and have a thorough work-up.

"Foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." – George Washington in his farewell address.

Revised 6:30am. Articles of Impeachment have been drafted and released. The charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  A vote should come within days.


We're getting closer to impeaching the 45th president* of the United States for inviting foreign interference in our elections.

Things are moving fast. The past week has accelerated impeachment to almost certainly a vote before Christmas (which is a mere 15 days away!)

Congress took a Thanksgiving week break and then came back running. In just one week, we received a 300-page report, heard a day-long hearing with Constitutional scholars, and watched a day-long fireworks-filled hearing with majority and minority counsel justifying their positions. And here is LSR, trying to keep up with all of it while maintaining a busy schedule.

Last Tuesday, the Intelligence Committee delivered a 300-page report to the Judiciary Committee outlining the evidence. I haven't had a chance to read it, but our free press has. You can see the full report here or summaries from the New York Times here and Politico here.

The blockbuster revelations included details about Rep. Devin Nunes's involvement, as well as new information about a bunch o' phone calls. The Committee has phone records of the principals, and it shows frequent communication, and one surmises, coordination between Rudy Giuliani and others. From Politico:

Schiff and his top aide on the Intelligence panel, Daniel Goldman, are former federal prosecutors. So it makes some sense that they’d ask for phone records from AT&T and Verizon in their Ukraine investigation. 

And by the looks of their report, they hit the jackpot. Call logs cited by the House reference numerous contacts among the many players in this saga, down to the minute and second. There are 16 calls, for example, between Giuliani and Parnas between April 1 and April 7 as the Trump associates worked to undermine Yovanovitch. In the same time period, Parnas and Solomon have 10 calls. The House report also describes multiple calls between Toensing, Giuliani and Parnas; Giuliani and Nunes; Giuliani and the White House (followed by one that came soon after, lasting 8 minutes and 28 seconds, with an unidentified number); Giuliani and OMB; and even a 48-second call between Giuliani and a number associated with then-national security adviser John Bolton.

The report set up a road map for the next phase, much of which we have barreled through already.

The very next day after the report was released, four Constitutional scholars appeared before the Judiciary Committee for testimony. They testified all day and I was able to watch and listen to parts of it. It was a good lesson in the Constitution and the state of mind of our founders as they drafted it.

We heard from three Constitutional law scholars that the Democrats called: Noah Feldman of Harvard, Pamela Karlan of Stanford, and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and one that the Republicans called, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University. A couple things I found noteworthy.

The three Democrat-invited scholars all agreed that the offenses that TRUMP committed were impeachable, and should be acted upon urgently. But the Republican-invited professor, Professor Turley was a bit more skeptical. He seemed to make a main point that the investigation should slow down and they should wait for the courts to decide if the blocked witnesses can be compelled to testify. He said:

"...impeachments require a certain period of saturation and maturation. That is the public has to catch up. I’m not prejudging what your record would show, but if you rush this impeachment, you’re going to leave half the country behind, and certainly that’s not what the framers wanted. You have to give the time to build a record. This isn’t an impulse buy item. 

You’re trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States and that takes time. It takes work. But at the end, if you look at Nixon, which was the gold standard in this respect, the public did catch up. They originally did not support impeachment, but they changed their mind. You changed their mind and so did, by the way, the courts, because you allow these issues to be heard in the courts."

What was interesting was that he wasn't saying the 45's transgressions aren't impeachable, but entreated to gather more evidence. It's a fair point. But the difference is, we have ample evidence without those witnesses. We really don't need to wait, and we really shouldn't wait, because the fate of our next election is at stake.

I also heard the portion where Turley went into the minutiae about "bribery" and what it means in criminal law. Interesting information, but not relevant to an impeachment. The framers did not have specific statutes regarding "high crimes and misdemeanors" in mind when they crafted the Constitution. They left it broadly defined for a reason. They couldn't imagine future laws that would apply. The laws on the books will not help; the Constitution is the law.

Professor Turley wasn't a great witness for the GOP, I thought. He again talked mostly about the process and did not dispute the facts that warrant impeachment. And given his floppy-floppy views when it was Democrat Bill Clinton who was facing impeachment, he wasn't a great witness in my view.

The other three were in lock step about the urgency for impeachment. Mr Feldman issued a dire warning: "If we cannot impeach a president who abused his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy.”

We had to again endure Jim Jordan's and Matt Gaetz's screeching. Ugh. These two drama queens are getting so tiresome. They just look like idiots with their bullying tactics. Seriously, who admires this behavior? If you endorse their tactics, then you are part of the problem.

Overall, the hearing was an interesting lesson in Constitutional law and the impeachment clause, as well as the historical context of the worries that the framers had. They had our exact situation in mind when they wrote the section about impeachment. The founding fathers were quite worried about foreign interference in our elections. Here is a little tutorial about it from NPR.

Here's the whole transcript from the hearing. Here is a summary from the New York Times, another one from the New York Times looking specifically at the opening statements, and here is one from Reuters. Cool stuff, that Constitution!

And yesterday, we had a Judiciary Committee hearing with the staff attorneys, Steve Castor for the GOP and Barry Burke and Daniel Goldman for the Dems. It got sparky at times, mostly from Repugs interrupting and showing their frustration. Chairman Nadler's gavel sure got warm.

There wasn't much new. The same talking points from the GOP -- trying to muddy the waters and attacking the process. Claiming that 45 was oh-so-worried about corruption. If he was so worried about Hunter Biden, why didn't he start investigating right away? Hunter Biden was on that board for years before this incident. And Mr. Castor was laughable at times -- slimily discrediting the well-known facts as "ambiguous."

The Democrat lawyers set out the facts of the scheme and gave an outline about what articles of impeachment might look like.

Here are some takeaways from the New York Times, and here is a summary from The Atlantic.

Bill Bramhall

So now, it's up to the Judiciary Committee to draft the articles of impeachment. It appears that there will be an article for abuse of power and one for obstruction. I think they'll fold in some of the Mueller findings to demonstrate a pattern, but not make the Russia actions their own articles. We shall see, very soon, possibly as early as this week.


In the end, we must impeach. We must protect our republic and our elections. Yes, it would be easier to wait until the 2020 election, just 11 months away, to remove him. But there are two reasons: one, it is the absolute duty of Congress to defend the Constitution. This includes impeaching a dangerous president. Each member of Congress took a sacred oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They have no choice but to honor that oath, especially if that enemy is, sadly, domestic. And two, if we do nothing, 45 will be emboldened, and he may do even worse. We simply cannot let the behaviors go unchecked.


In other news, the Inspector General report regarding the oranges (hee hee) of the Russia investigation was released. I'll let Stephen Colbert tell ya about that.





There's lots of non-impeachment stuff happening, too, and soon I'll dive into those.

Thanks for reading. Stay tuned.