From Gobble and Waddle to Lincoln and Beyond: Presidential Words of Thanksgiving

Gobble and "Wattle" 

As Gobble and Waddle strut away from the carving table — just two among nearly 2,000 individuals pardoned since January — let’s reflect on the words of past presidents on Thanksgiving: messages of gratitude, hope, and unity that have carried us through the generations.

Lincoln (1863): “It has seemed to me fit and proper that (our blessings) should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people.”

Reagan (1982): “Thanksgiving Day is one of our most beloved holidays, an occasion set aside by Americans from earliest times to thank our Maker prayerfully and humbly for the blessings and the care He bestows on us and on our beautiful, bountiful land.”

Obama (2011): “Thanksgiving reminds us that no matter our differences, we are still one people, part of something bigger than ourselves. Because what makes us American are the ideals to which we pledge our allegiance.”

Biden (2021): “This Thanksgiving we are grateful for our Nation and the incredible soul of America. May we all remember that we are the United States of America — there is nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.”

Trump (2019): “The Do Nothing Democrats are a disgrace...Happy Thanksgiving!”

Across centuries, these words remind us that Thanksgiving is about gratitude, hope, and unity. So, in that spirit, I'll borrow one of those very special Presidential messages: 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Trump's Venezuela: costliest lie yet?

Venezuela’s not about drugs.

It’s about oil. It’s about power. And it’s about ratings.

Any other explanation is a lie.

Apparently, Trump has a lot on his mind...

Throughout US history, military interventions have almost always given presidents an immediate surge in approval—George H.W. Bush in Panama (1989), George W. Bush in Iraq (2003), and even Ronald Reagan, post‑recession, in (for goodness’ sake) the tiny island of Grenada (1983).

Each time, the White House offered a noble rationale: Panama was about stopping the drug trade. Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction. Grenada was about protecting American medical students after a Marxist coup.

Look closer: the pattern is unmistakable. The “justifications” were pretexts. The real stakes were control of trade routes, oil reserves, and presidential power—accomplished through toppling sovereign regimes.

And now, just as it was then, so it is in oil‑rich Venezuela.

Trump’s team has been laying the groundwork, claiming that any military action is to stop drugs that are killing Americans.

For more than two months, the US has been targeting and destroying boats—and killing their occupants—in the Caribbean, insisting that intelligence shows these are fentanyl‑bearing vessels bound for American shores.

Wow.

Either US intelligence is catastrophically wrong, or it is deliberately lying.

Because fentanyl comes from Mexico, not Venezuela. Cartels traffic it over land routes, not through the Caribbean. If Venezuelan boats are smuggling anything, it’s cocaine bound for Europe—not fentanyl coming into the US.

So Trump’s pretense for a military buildup is—no surprise—a lie.

Why, then, bully and possibly attack Venezuela?

Well, there’s that approval‑rating surge for a president watching his MAGA base crumble—dissatisfaction with the economy, the Epstein files released against his wishes, and the rebellion of Marjorie “Traitor” Greene.

But there’s more. Trump is seeking regime change, to remove Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.

Is Venezuela's Maduro preparing for a fight?

I’m not saying that would be a bad thing. Imagine living in a country where a president rules by decree, ignores other branches of government, presides over a collapsed economy, enriches his cronies, curbs religious freedom, silences opposition, and censors the media. Yikes. That’s a nightmare.

But Trump isn’t trying to end nightmares. He’s trying to script his own dream of dominance.

It’s the oil. It’s the power.

By asserting US dominance, Trump would proclaim himself the “savior” of the hemisphere—halting Venezuela’s drift toward Russia, China, and Iran—while posing as a strongman among the leaders he admires: Erdogan, Orban, Putin, Xi.

And unlike that rogue’s gallery, Maduro’s isn't Trump's pal.

Pal or not, access to Venezuela’s massive oil reserves would be a bonus—fuel for Trump’s elusive quest to lower inflation, and profit for his allies.

But unlike Panama, Iraq, or Grenada, intervention here will be costly and messy.

Maduro is shielded from sanctions, backed by his military, and armed by Russia, China, and Iran. They won’t abandon their foothold in the Western Hemisphere quietly.

Trump could, instead, build coalitions with Latin American democracies, strengthen sanctions, or offer humanitarian aid to weaken Maduro’s ties to adversarial powers.

But cooperation isn’t Trump’s style.

So, he’ll continue to bully. To threaten. To disparage.

And to lie that it’s about the drugs.

Panama, Iraq, Grenada—were also each sold on a lie.

My cut: Venezuela may be the costliest lie yet.

Trump's Epstein gamble: Transparency or deflection?

Trump decides to wrap his
arms around the Epstein files

The winds of change seem to have come to Trump regarding the Epstein files.

Despite his repeated attempts to prevent the release of the notorious files—social media dismissals, claims of "Democrat hoax," calls and Situation Room persuasion sessions with release backers—Trump now promotes their release himself.

Which begs the enormous question:

Why?

A sudden burst of moral clarity?

Nope.

A careful review of evidence convincing him to do what's right?

Nope.

With Trump, there's always a calculation--always an angle of personal political (or sometimes financial) advantage. Whether it's accepting a Qatari jet, promoting a Venezuelan coup, pardoning a crypto billionaire, or calling up the National Guard (or, in the case of January 6, not doing so), every move is transactional. Every reversal has a purpose.

So, what's his angle here? 

Trump's angle here is likely to weave a political narrative from three strands of calculation.

1) Trump's leaning into "transparency." Obviously, he and his team believe there's nothing in the files any more damaging than what's already come out in the Epstein emails: Trump being "the dog that didn't bark," or that Trump "knew about the girls." He's already proven that he can maintain his base by explaining away things like this (such as his "locker room banter" of "Grab 'em by the p***y" or a "perfect" phone call with Zelensky)," or ignoring/denying them altogether (like alleged infidelities with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal).

Even if the news is somewhat damning, Trump's "nothing to hide" ploy creates the illusion that it must be acceptable, after all.

2) Trump's counting on deflection. Through his briefings with his hand-picked AG (and sycophantic pitbull) Pam Bondi—or maybe through personal knowledge—Trump perhaps thinks the file info might be even more damaging to his political foes—for example, prominent Democrats including Bill Clinton—or maybe he could use it as possible leverage to discredit or put the squeeze on liberal universities with known connections to Epstein (i.e., Harvard, MIT, Stanford) or corporate powerhouses already mentioned, such as Elon Musk. His 2016 campaign deflection of "What about her emails?!" worked better than anyone really could have predicted.

3) Trump's appealing to his base. Trump knows that Epstein's name is radioactive among his remarkably fervent MAGA-heads and the GOP. By backing release, Trump taps into his base's unrelenting anger at “elites,” presenting himself as the one exposing corruption and “putting away pedophiles.” This isn’t about the files themselves — it’s about energizing supporters who see the release as proof that Trump is fighting the establishment, which is how Trump got elected in the first place.

Get ready for spin "like
you wouldn't believe"

So, where do we go from here? 

The reality is that many files will remain sealed under court order, requiring judicial approval—not Trump’s. His DOJ can still petition to withhold certain records or push for redactions under the guise of “national security,” but the ultimate decision rests with the courts. In other words, Trump can posture about release, yet the judiciary holds the keys.

But Trump's name will appear. 

And to control the narrative, Trump now owns it.

He will authorize the release of the Epstein files.

My cut: buckle in for the tornado-like spin that is sure to follow.

ADDENDUM: Many have asked "IF THESE ARE SO DAMNING FOR TRUMP, WHY DIDN'T THE DEMS RELEASE THEM WHEN THEY WERE IN POWER?'

Although Democrats technically had the power to subpoena Epstein’s files, ongoing criminal and civil cases (Maxwell’s trial and estate lawsuits through the end of 2022) kept the records tied up as evidence. By the time those cases closed, Republicans controlled the House.

Trump, Epstein, and the sweetheart deal that won't die

Epstein and his "closest friend"

The disgusting saga of Trump’s one-time friend Jeffrey Epstein started long before Trump’s 2024 campaign promise to release the files about the “terrific guy” who was arrested in 2019 for sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. And it, interestingly, includes lawyers that eventually defended Trump, as well as one of Trump’s Cabinet picks.

Legally, it goes back to 2005, when the mother of a 14-year-old contacted Palm Beach Police alleging Epstein’s sexual abuse of her daughter.

It was predicated on the compelling testimony of a teenage girl (read it here).

She was a troubled kid who initially just wanted to make some money for her shopping trips to the mall, a visit that, with Epstein’s encouragement, escalated far beyond just the massage she believed she was hired to give. The investigation also revealed more than a dozen other high school girls describing their very similar experiences with Epstein.

But the testimony of a child, it appears, was no match for the Epstein defense.

Epstein’s legal team was composed of high‑powered lawyers known for representing wealthy and famous clients, as well as figures tied to the GOP establishment. It included Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and celebrity attorney (consultant on O.J. Simpson’s defense and adviser to Harvey Weinstein, and  defended Trump in his first impeachment); Roy Black, a prominent criminal defense attorney who represented William Kennedy Smith and Rush Limbaugh; Kenneth Starr, the former Independent Counsel who investigated Bill Clinton (and also defended Trump in his first impeachment); and Jay Lefkowitz, a former White House attorney under President George W. Bush.

Together, they formed what was likely the most formidable legal team ever assembled for a sex crimes case; certainly, for what turned out to be simply State of Florida charges.

And, wow, they fought fiercely for their client, Jeffrey Epstein.

Justice is not blind for the rich

They threatened a “scorched earth” defense, warning prosecutors they would put victims through harsh cross‑examination, questioning their credibility and personal lives, which would likely discourage testimony.

They challenged the case’s strength, arguing that many victims were reluctant to testify publicly, and that witness accounts were inconsistent — making a federal trial risky.

They leaned into their political and institutional leverage—with lawyers like Starr and Dershowitz, the team had deep connections in Washington and the legal establishment, which added weight to their negotiations.

And it worked.

In 2008, Epstein, instead of facing federal charges, was prosecuted only on two State of Florida charges: solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of prostitution from a minor, keeping the case from a federal trial and further scrutiny. This was granted by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Alexander Acosta—interestingly, a man Trump named Secretary of Labor during his first term.

In Florida, solicitation of prostitution from a minor can bring up to 15 years in prison.

Any sentence under 10 years for doing so to a child of 14 would be unusual.

Epstein got 18 months.

He was able to leave the prison with work privileges—heading out to his office up to 12 hours six days per week—before having to come back to the prison at night.

He was released in 2009, after only 13 months.

In addition to a sentence that was (and is) termed by many a “sweetheart deal,” Epstein’s team secured a non‑prosecution agreement that not only protected Epstein from federal charges but also brought an extraordinary concession which gave immunity to “potential co‑conspirators.”  The team also assured that the deal was hidden from victims until it was finalized, seemingly violating federal victims’ rights laws.

And that’s how we got here—Trump desperately trying to distance himself from a man who Epstein once called “his closest friend,” and many in Congress looking to hold Trump to his 2024 pledge to release even more information about Epstein and his pals.

My cut: The legal saga may have begun in 2005, but, even twenty years later, it’s a long way from being over—

for Trump, the American people, and for the survivors demanding the truth.

Trump's constitutional sledgehammer hits a brick wall

Trump keeps bringing
 down the hammer

Trump is taking a sledgehammer to our Constitution, one amendment at a time.

Well, actually, yesterday revealed two.

Federal courts ruled that the Trump administration—despite its vow to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"—violated not one, but two constitutional amendments, the First (free speech) and the Tenth (States' rights).

Regarding the First Amendment, Trump's Department of Education inexplicably thought it was appropriate to hijack the email accounts of its furloughed employees, surreptitiously crafting their out-of-office message to explicitly blame Democrats for the government shutdown, regardless of their personal beliefs or political leanings.

DC's District Judge Christopher Cooper found doing so was compelled free speech. He wrote: "Political officials are free to blame whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use rank-and-file civil servants as their unwilling spokespeople. The First Amendment stands in their way."

Meanwhile, in Portland, District Judge Karin Immergut issued a 106-page opinion to permanently block Trump's team from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, writing: "...the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard."

That's two—count 'em—two breaches of constitutional amendments struck down in a single day.

And, of course, we remember the brazen attempts by Trump's DHS to deport dozens of alleged Venezuelan gang members, right?

Trump's Caribbean killings don't really
 worry about that pesky "due process" thing...

The US Supreme Court found it a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, the right to due process (courts are currently hearing similar due process cases regarding Trump's wanton killings of alleged drug dealers in international waters). 

Trump also flirted with smashing the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause—pardoning and praising January 6 rioters, including those convicted of attempting to overthrow the U.S. government. That same amendment also enshrines birthright citizenship, which federal courts have repeatedly upheld despite Trump’s relentless assault.

And his allies say "there is a plan" for a Trump third term—a direct violation of the Twenty-Second Amendment. Trump has even kept "Trump 2028" hats on his Oval Office desk.

So, if you're keeping score, Trump's team has thus far violated the First, Tenth, and Fifth Amendments—as well as possibly the Fourteenth and—who knows?—maybe someday the Twenty-Second.

That leaves 22 amendments to go.

Keep that sledgehammer handy, Donald.

Trump: SNAP decisions, sham promises

Donald Trump has agreed to free up some money to feed hungry children.

Well, because a court ordered him to. 

Trump begrudgingly helps out

And while Trump did approve the court-mandated SNAP funds, it wasn’t a penny more than required. The amount will cover only about half of November’s SNAP costs.

Still the government shutdown drags on. November 6th marks day 36 of Americans held hostage. And the core dispute? Democrats insist that Obamacare subsidies shouldn't be allowed to expire—a move that, by most estimates, would spike premiums by at least 114%. 

Trump and the GOP say, "Just approve the budget and we promise to have meetings about the ACA subsidies after the government is again up and running."

Uh, yeah. Right.

There's solid evidence to show Trump won't keep his word.  Case in point: the 2018–2019 shutdown. Back then, Trump demanded border wall funding. Congress passed a bipartisan bill without it, after Trump signaled he’d sign it to avoid a shutdown.

Except—he didn’t. And that triggered the previous record-setting 35-day shutdown.

When you factor in Trump’s well-documented record of lying, bullying, and committing fraud, his word has less credibility than a diploma from Trump University.

Even Jimmy Kimmel weighed in during his November 3 monologue:

“He doesn’t want [low-income Americans] to go hungry—he just wants them to lose their health insurance.”

And Trump wasn’t exactly gracious at first.

“SNAP BENEFITS… will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”

Naturally, the White House had to walk that back (as usual), assuring reporters:

“Of course we’ll comply with the court order.”

Trump later softened his stance with:

Red states also have SNAP recipients

“But I’m president, I want to help everybody. I want to help Democrats and Republicans. But when you’re talking about SNAP, if you look, it’s largely Democrats. They’re hurting their own people.”

Um, not quite. In many of Trump's most loyal—and inexplicably still slavishly supportive—red states, more than half of SNAP recipients are likely Trump voters.

My cut: It's a good thing Trump wants "to help Democrats and Republicans."

And children, I guess.

Even if it takes a court order.

Trump: Most transparent anyone's ever seen

Satire alert: The first paragraph is real, the rest, not so much...

(Washington, DC) 'I haven't been transparent, really?': Trump snaps, loses it on reporter when called out on his lies (about the ballroom construction/East Wing demolition) in the Oval Office.

"How can you say that?!" Trump demanded. "I am the most transparent president--nobody's ever seen anything like it!" 

Nobody's ever seen anything
like Trump

Trump pulled out a large, laminated tagboard labeled, "Transparency Chart," complete with a glittering star and some notes in Sharpie.

Pointing to the first box, Trump exclaimed, "Look at that first box: IMMIGRATION! And the examples of my transparency are here, too! For example, I've come right out and called them vermin and rapists! I've pushed conspiracy theories that they eat their neighbors' pets, for Christ's sake."

"Or the second box: LAW AND ORDER! I pardoned 1,500 patriots who stormed the Capitol and beat up cops! I told violent militia to 'stand back and stand by!' I sent federal troops in to terrorize peaceful Democrat cities!

That's about as transparent as you can get."

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy raised a hand and asked, "Mr. President, what's that big square with the gold star?"

Trump gets a gold
star for racism

"That's RACISM!" Trump shouted, beaming with pride.  "I've been transparent about racism like you wouldn't believe!" Trump held the chart up so everyone could see. "It says here that I've called for the restoration of honors for all our great Confederate heroes. I pointed out that DEI actually discriminates against our put-upon, white male population. I even purposely mispronounce Ka-MA-la's name and still bring up that Barack Hussein Obama wasn't born in the US."

"If you think I'm not a racist, you just haven't been paying attention," he claimed in exasperation.

"As these chart examples show, I am the most transparent president in the history of this country," he said. "By now, everyone should know exactly where I stand."

Although Trump was apparently done sharing his charts, journalists noted one in the pile titled, "And Here's How I've Screwed the Constitution!"

Trump then launched into a ten-minute rant about windmills and wandered off toward the former East Wing.