Trump’s doctor felt raped!?

Posted on May 1, 2018 by geeez2014

Honestly, when I first heard this last night on the news, I thought “My gosh, what’s Trump’s excuse for getting the records now when Sarah Sanders’ excuse today at the press briefing was ‘every president gets his records and gives them to the WH doctor when it’s a year later? Why didn’t they take them a year ago? What kind of excuse is that?”

COME TO FIND THIS DID HAPPEN A YEAR AGO. SO why the story NOW?

They must have liberal journalists EVERYWHERE looking into EVERYTHING they can. Who’s paying for this? This is waaay beyond normal, this incredible and constant tirade against everything Trump.

And, his long-time very creepy doctor said he felt RAPED when they came to collect the records? Man, how’d they collect them?! 🙂

So, they took them a year ago February, and it’s made the news today. Must have been a hard day to find anything worse on Trump, huh?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Trump’s doctor felt raped!?

kid says:

May 1, 2018 at 5:21 pm

I’m gonna go with slow Trump news day.

LikeLike
bunkerville says:

May 1, 2018 at 5:42 pm

The link is dead….. but apparently a power struggle, so what else is knew?

LikeLike
Ed Bonderenka says:

May 1, 2018 at 6:38 pm

Gorsuch, Tax Break, Judges, North Korea, ISIS, …..

LikeLiked by 1 person
geeez2014 says:

May 1, 2018 at 7:23 pm

Ya, Kid..tho there really hasn’t been one slow news day since Trump took office; too much awful stuff to dig up and report on…much of it untrue.

Ed….the negative stuff DOES cover up the great stuff that’s going on, doesn’t it. But I think Trump does the same thing. ..says outrageously weird stuff to get the media off of what he doesn’t want them on. At least several people I know suspect that.

Bunkerville…the link is there…be patient! I had to wait a while when I checked it 🙂

LikeLike
geeez2014 says:

May 1, 2018 at 7:29 pm

OH NO! It’s exactly as I’d thought….

Here’s from another article!!!!

“Donald Trump may not be the “healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency” after all.

Capping a bizarre day for the president’s former personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN Tuesday that he didn’t write the glowing 2015 assessment of Trump’s health that carried his signature.

“He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter. I just made it up as I went along,” Bornstein told CNN. (Z: I knew it then, because Trump’s numbers on his health are in my link and they’re not exceptional at ALL and I thought the doctor was a total NUT for saying so…..I feel a bit sick about this, myself. Trump is unstoppable on ego and hyperbole…everyone should have known that wasn’t the doctor talking..DARN.)

aRTICLE CONTINUES “The Trump campaign touted the four-paragraph letter, which stated “his health is excellent, especially his mental health.”

“If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” the original letter concluded.

WHo’d SAY that?

Trump would.

LikeLike

Copyright & Fair Use Statement I hereby assert that the purpose of this blog is educational/informative in matters of politics and faith. There is no commercial purpose to this blog. There is no revenue generated from any material posted here. I am not in competition with any news source, including any other on-line journal, and I have no interest in interfering with any person’s ability to earn an income as an author, journalist, photographer, or artist. This website contains some quotations and excerpts from copyrighted material. These uses fall well within the copyright doctrine of “Fair Use.” Section 107 of the United States Code, Title 17, specifies the conditions under which, “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . ., scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” It provides four considerations for determining fair use: (1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, (2) The nature of the copyrighted work, (3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The use on this website of other material involves “criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship or research” (a) The “purpose and character” of the website is not “commercial.” (b) The overwhelming majority of the material is the author’s own research and work. It is in no way a mere collection of others’ copyrighted works, nor is any material competitive with those sources. (2) The “nature of the copyrighted work” quoted is often “news” or “faith,” categories given lesser protection in fair use cases than works of fiction. (3) Most uses involve excerpts rather than entire works. Because the adverse financial impact on copyright owners is central to the purpose of copyright law, and the analysis of alleged violations, it’s relevant to note that, under factor (4), (a) no one in search of the quoted material would substitute this blog or book for the original source, (b) it is highly unlikely this website (or any material created from it) will ever have more than a de minimis impact on any of the copyright works’ potential market, and (c) to the extent it might do so, it would be far more likely be a positive, rather than a negative, impact (by drawing attention to the work, crediting it, and providing a source where it may be found). Finally, to the extent any copyright owner may wish, consideration will be given to all reasonable requests that copyright material be removed from this website. I will always endeavor to provide proper attribution to the source of another person’s work if I know it. If I do not know the source of incorporated work, I will state “source unknown.” I will happily credit any previously unknown source if their identity is made known to me in “blog comments.” -GeeeZ

Search for: