He is not Hillary Clinton, you see.

Therefore no matter how stupid anything he says might be, shut up.

Thank you.

P.S. Yes, comments are closed. You were informed to shut up, citizen. It has been determined that open comments, while certain to result in dozens to hundreds of comments critical of the blog owner, could also result in perhaps one or two comments that could be critical of Donald Trump. And — did you forget? you were told to shut up, because Donald Trump is not Hillary Clinton.

Did you think we were joking, citizen?

OK. Then shut up already.

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

Justice Scalia cast the deciding vote that said burning the flag is protected speech under the First Amendment.

But Donald Trump doesn’t give a rip about the First Amendment. And he is going to be President.

I know, I know. He pops off like this and everybody gets spun up, and you feel like an idiot.

Except — did I mention this part? — he is going to be the President. And this is, quite simply, insane talk.

Ken White lets him have it, with humor, here.

I hope readers appreciate the irony in the use of the term “shocker” in the headline. Sometimes these things don’t come across on the Internet.

The Center for Public Integrity reports:

Donald Trump’s inaugural committee is offering huge perks — prime tickets, luxurious lodging, access to the president-elect himself — in exchange for six- and seven-figure contributions from individual and corporate contributors.

Donors in the “$1,000,000+” category will receive four tickets to a “leadership luncheon” billed as an “exclusive inaugural event” for donors in that category and featuring “select Cabinet appointees and House and Senate leadership to honor our most generous inaugural supporters,” according to a brochure obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

They’ll also get four tickets to a dinner with Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, and eight tickets to a “ladies luncheon” billed as “an opportunity to meet the ladies of the first families.” In addition, they’ll receive tickets to a series of other dinners and receptions featuring Trump, Pence and other officials, and eight “premier access” tickets to a black-tie inaugural ball attended by the president, vice president and their wives.

This is nothing new, of course. The piece notes that Obama, after banning corporate donations for his 2009 inaugural, gladly welcomed them for his 2013 version — just as Trump is welcoming them now, for his 2017 version. As a Public Citizen spokesman explains: “To throw a lot of money into a big party to welcome a new president, these corporations believe that is endearing them to the next administration.”

Here’s my favorite part of the report:

All the donor packages include “Priority Booking at Premier Inaugural Hotel(s),” allowing donors the chance to book prime hotel rooms (at their own expense, of course, and with a four-night minimum stay). . . . Not indicated on the brochure?

Whether one of those “Premier Inaugural Hotel(s)” might be the president-elect’s own newly opened Trump International Hotel, a luxury hotel located five blocks from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue and along the inaugural parade route.

You know it does, girlfriend!

Trading money for access has always been the way of Washington, and it always will be. If you voted for Barack Obama thinking he was going to change things, you were a chump sucker.

Sorry to say, the same applies to anyone who voted for Donald Trump for the same reason.

Status of swamp = Still Undrained.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Awwww.

Senator Chris Coons (D., Del.) said on CNN Tuesday that he regrets the rule change Senate Democrats made to the nomination process.

“The filibuster no longer acts as an emergency brake on the nomination,” Coons said.

The senator was questioned on the nomination process and the rule changes that senate Democrats had made in order to keep Republicans from derailing their selected nominees.

Coons admitted that Democrats had watered down the nomination process after Kate Bolduan mentioned that Republican’s could now take advantage of the simpler consent process.

“I do regret that. Frankly I think many of us will regret that in this congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down the confirmation of extreme nominees,” Coons said.

I have considered the Senator’s argument and determined that I agree with Stephen Miller:

Too fucking bad https://t.co/e78cbDm0r0

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) November 30, 2016

Mitt Romney is pivoting hard from his comments during the election in which he called Donald Trump an unstable bully whose hallmark is dishonesty. In remarks after his dinner with Trump tonight, Romney suggested that Trump’s civil speech after winning the election, coupled with his Cabinet picks thus far, give him hope that Trump is “the very man who can lead us to that better future”:

Here's Romney's full remarks after dinner tonight with Trump pic.twitter.com/ufubPoDrZg

— Jon Passantino (@passantino) November 30, 2016

Sooner or later, every single person in the GOP will fall in line.

Except maybe Mike Lee and Justin Amash.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

I don’t know much about him, and I don’t have the same kind of antipathy for Goldman Sachs that the Trumpers do. One might wonder how the more reptile-brained of the Trumpers will receive the news that an ex-Goldman Sachs guy is going to head up the Treasury. People like this guy:

(H/t Allahpundit on teh Twitters.)

Eh. I figure they won’t care, because they’re blindly loyal to TRUMP!! and issues don’t really matter. Whining about Goldman Sachs was just a thinly veiled way to attack the Jews anyway, and if Mr. The Donald likes this guy, well, then, he must be One of the Good Ones.

UPDATE: Oh yeah. He also used to work for George Soros.

The mystery in Donald Trump’s vetting of Mitt Romney for the position of Secretary of State has seemed to come down to one question: Is Trump trying to humiliate Romney, or does he actually want him as Secretary of State?

Maybe the answer is: both.

Does Trump actually want Romney? Maybe! He “looks the part” — plus, what better way is there for Trump to show Romney who is the alpha male? As for the “apology” Trump is supposedly demanding, Trump may be savvy enough to know that he doesn’t need to demand it. The first time Secretary of State Romney faces questioners from Big Media, they’ll ask him: Hey, didn’t you say “Dishonesty is Donald Trump’s hallmark”? Didn’t you call him an unstable bully? And Romney will have to smile and squirm and kind of walk it back, a little.

So yeah, maybe Trump does want Romney after all.

But that doesn’t mean he’s not trying to humiliate him.

Part of my evidence for the theory that Trump was trying to embarrass Romney was my belief that Conway had permission to “go rogue.” As I said yesterday: “I don’t think Kellyanne Conway breathes without instructions.” As noted earlier this morning by Dan Spencer, the Trump campaign has confirmed that Conway asked permission before laying into Romney publicly. The New York Times has further details:

Mr. Trump, in a statement emailed Monday evening by his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said: “Kellyanne came to me and asked whether or not she could go public with her thoughts on the matter. I encouraged her to do so. Most importantly she fully acknowledged there is only one person that makes the decision. She has always been a tremendous asset and that will continue.”

But wait! Who really wrote that statement?

@Patterico @benshapiro This does not sound like Trump. There are complete sentences in this statement. Who really wrote it?

— (((Karen Grubaugh))) (@kleegrubaugh) November 29, 2016

"Write this: 'Kellyanne asked me whether she could go public with her concerns about Romney'…Mr. Trump, there's no space in 'Kellyanne.'" pic.twitter.com/PXrWie9Ub6

— Patterico (@Patterico) November 29, 2016

The NYT claims that Conway took the initiative and did not act on specific instructions from Trump to criticize Romney. She asked permission to express her concerns and he granted it . . . or so the Trump folks say. And that may be — but just because they make the claim, doesn’t mean it’s true. These people lie as easily as they breathe.

At a minimum, let’s just say that Trump . . . was not displeased to see one of his main critics trashed on “the shows.”

The Times claims that “little in Mr. Trump’s universe is simple.” Perhaps there is a more complex answer to the question: Does Trump really want Romney, or does he just want Romney to be humiliated? Maybe the answer is a little of both.

But maybe the answer is simple after all. Maybe, as with so many areas of public policy, the answer is that Trump has no idea what he wants.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]