Theo the Trump Employee Episode 29 Professor vs, Drunk

                It has been a very tough week in the White House.  Impeachment proceedings have gone from mild rumblings to loud roars.  Whether or not they have anything that is actually impeachable, however, hasn’t changed.  They do not.  Theo is an employee at the White House and has been dealing with this. As his co-workers ask him what he thinks, he merely states, “I thought they’d impeach him when the Democrats won the house.  I’m surprised it’s taken them over a year.  I still don’t think they have the votes in the Senate so I don’t think he’ll be removed.  It will piss off and motivate his base and they’ll come out to vote in 2020.”

                The latest thing under the title, “We got him now” is a whistleblower complaint about a conversation that President Trump had with the Ukrainian President Zelensky.  The transcript has been released and it came out that everything the media reported on was a lie.  There was no quid pro quo, there were no promises made, it wasn’t a threat, there was no pressure and it wasn’t to get the notes of a pre-existing investigation.  President Trump simply asked for a favor to look into Joe Biden meddling in a Ukrainian investigation into his son and the company he worked for, Burisma.  Theo leaves work and goes to a bar in the Georgetown area.  He enjoys debating liberals and now that the Whistleblower story is a week old, it’s fresh on everyone’s minds.  He goes in and orders a drink.  Usually, people don’t pay any attention to him but today, students have conniving smiles on their faces.  He smiles back and is unsure what joke he’s missing.  He writes it off as being the oldest person in the bar, which he’s become used to as he trolls college bars to challenge college students.  As he looks around, however, he starts noticing that he actually is not the oldest person in this bar.  A girl walks up to him with the same sinister smile as everyone else and charmingly says, “Hi”

                “Hello” Theo responds nonchalantly

                “How do you feel now that we got your boy Trump dead to rights?”

                “I think this is like the 204^th time someone has claimed that.”

                “You don’t think the Whistleblower story is open and shut?”

                “Not by a long shot.  It was a pre-planned hit and is just one more indication of the deep state’s effort to perform a soft coup on President Trump”

                To Theo’s surprise the girl smiles even widen.  She giggles a little bit and turns around.  A man older than Theo’s 35 approaches him.  He extends his hand and remarks, “Hello, I’m Professor Vikas.  I teach political science at Georgetown University”

                Theo shakes his hand, “Hi, I’m Theo.  I work for your sworn enemy Donald Trump”

                Theo doesn’t know Professor Vikas.  For all he knows, he’s not even a professor.  Theo merely assumes that every college professor’s enemy is President Donald Trump.  Professor Vikas smiles with his mouth but it doesn’t reach his eyes.  “My students have been telling me that you frequent this bar a lot and spout your propaganda”

                “No, I lay down some truth.  In the old days, people encouraged debate.  That used to be the point of University but you people ruined all that by suppressing conservative thought.  I merely come in and give them the opposing view.  Usually I’m grossly outnumbered yet apparently I’ve made an impact since they got back up.”

                “It’s not hard to convince impressionable college students.  I won’t have you corrupting their minds and exploiting that they are away from their parents so have their first taste of freedom.  You take advantage of their alcohol affected brains and insert filth in their drunken stupors.”

                Theo burst out laughing, “Wow, I knew liberals were masters of projection but that was brilliant.  I mean, you’re entire existence is lecturing to a bunch of those same kids you mentioned in the exact same predicament.”

                “I don’t do it at bars”

                “Make no mistake about it; some of your students go to your class drunk or hungover.  What time are you lectures?”

                “Some are in the morning, some are in the evening”

                “The ones in the morning, some are hung over, the ones in the evening, some are drunk”

                “You seem to love stereotyping”

                “As do you.  I know you’re not a psychology of biology professor but let me tell you how the human brain works.  Your mind processes information in categories call schemas.  These schemas have basic characteristics of something essential to that item.  It then fills in the rests as context provides.  The way it is normally described is the ‘grandmother’ neuron.  Now, you know what your grandmother looks like.  Your grandmother, however, looks differently depending on what angle you’re looking at her.  Since the amount of angles is infinite, you can’t have a neuron for every possible position your grandmother is in.  Therefore, you have core characteristics you look for and identify her that way.  Now, if she changes her clothes, gets her hair cut or whatever it may be, you can still recognize her because you use your schema.  This is what people call generalities and stereotypes.  You do it with other people too.  That’s why older people usually can understand things quicker because their experience has seen a similar situation or group and they have a head start in understanding.  To vilify generalities and stereotypes is to vilify the way your mind processes information.  If you do that, you’re just retarded.’

                The professor frowned.  He was used to people respecting him and this punk just called him a ‘retard.’  Now, he wanted more than ever to do what he was going to do.  “Finish your drink.  We have set up a room.  I challenge you to an impromptu debate.  Just so you know it will be recorded”

                “Can we have a live feed to the internet?”

                “Are you that confident?”

                “Yes”

                “How about a wager?”

                “No”

                “Why?  If you’re so confident?” There was a smug expression on his face

                “Because these are your students.  Their grade depends on you.  If they were to vote against you, even anonymously, they can be punished whereas I can’t do anything to punish them.”

                “Why do the debate at all if you think you’re going to lose?  This is an open school event, they’re not all my students.”

                “Because even if they vote for you, they know in their hearts who really won the debate.  My goal is information not to win over some asshole I don’t know”

                “Why the name calling?”

                “Because I hate college professors for all the reasons you indicated about why I come here.  I believe that professors are too afraid of the real world so they go to their one safe space where they manipulate college students.  I don’t have to tell you how because you very eloquently described it before.”

                “Well then let’s go.”

                Theo finished his drink and follows a crowd of people to the classroom.  A student queries, “Is there anything you need?”

                “A lab top linked to some sort of projector screen”

                “Right, all our rooms have that.”

                “Are you over 21?”

                “Yes” the expression on his face made Theo think that he wasn’t but he just had a fake iD.

                “Do you have Venmo? I’ll send you $30, get a bottle of Sapphire gin and tonic water and then you can do what you want with the rest”

                The student gave him his Venmo name and Theo sent the money doubting that he would do it.  They set up the monitors and a crowd of students gathered.  Theo looked out into the crowd and was shocked he made that much of an impression on them.  As everything was set up, the moderator, quickly introduced Professor Vikas and Theo.  The moderator explained, “This is not a formal debate.  No candidate can speak more than five minutes and then the opposing side gets to retort.  Theo, you start first”

                Theo was a little unnerved by all the phones on him right now but he stated, “First, I want to talk about why the whistleblower is coming out.  The inspector general report is coming out soon and it will be devastating for the Democrats and the DOJ, which encompasses the FBI and CIA.  They are covering up the Democrats collusion with the UK, Ukraine and Russia.  Basically everything they pretend President Trump did, they are guilty of themselves.  Democrats are projection artists nothing more.  The whistleblower scandal was a pre-planned professional hit job”

                Theo hears snickers from the crowd.  There’s a brief silence and the moderator declares, “If you’re not going to use the full five minutes, say ‘I yield my time’”

                “I yield my time” Theo announces

                Professor Vikas responds, “Thank you for being here students and fellow faculty members.  What you just heard is completely fabricated.  It’s not Theo’s fault as he’s been influenced by Fox News.  There is absolutely no evidence that Democrats spoke to any foreign power about Trump.  I yield my time”

                Theo furiously types on his laptop and pulls up an article in Politico, “This is an article from Politico, which is a left wing fake news outlet trusted and respected by liberals and Democrats.  Look at the subtext on the headline, ‘Kiev officials trying to make amends after openly advocating for Hillary’ I’ve highlighted certain parts of the article in which the Ukrainian officials say not to bother with Trump because Hillary is going to win.  When the good professor says that Fox News made it up, he forgets that the fake news has changed their story so many times that things that were covered up or taboo to report on, weren’t just a couple months ago.  If you want a CNN clip, here’s Katie who had Mark Short on.”  Theo plays a clip where Katie accuses him of Russian propaganda when he mentions Hillary and Obama colluding with Ukraine and Short interrupts ‘Actually it’s a Mark Vogle piece from politico” and holds it up ‘and he now writes for the NY times’  Theo continues, “Here is a Daily Caller piece entitled, “Steele indentified Russian Dossier sources notes reveal.  Here’s a highlighted excerpt where it says that Steele’s sources are Russians Surkov & Trubnikov..  Tell me something.  What is the name of the Russian President Trump colluded with?  I gave you names and notes from Kavalec speaking with Steele.   As for the final claim I made, here is a CNN article, “British intelligence passed Trump Associates’ communications with Russians on US Counterparts.’  Theo runs the mouse over to highlight parts where it says UK’s GCBQ (Their DOJ) and Mi5 (Their FBI) spying on President Trump.  So, my question to you professor is when you say I have no basis to make these accusations, what do you mean?”

                “This debate is not about Obama or Hillary.  We are here to talk about the Whistleblower.  You called it a pre-planned hit but all of this came out a week ago.  There is no deep state. This is just a concerned citizen who doesn’t like pay for play deals made by the president.”

                “Biden is on tape withholding a billion dollars in aid if they don’t fire their prosecutor general”

                “He was corrupt.  The EU said he was corrupt.  Various Ukrainian officials said he was corrupt”

                “Why would Biden care that the Ukrainian prosecutor is corrupt?  Isn’t that a Ukraine problem?”

                “We don’t like working with corrupt politicians”
                “He’s not a politician, he’s a prosecutor general”

                “Biden was still concerned”

                “Because Inspector General Shokin was investigating Burisma and their hiring and paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a month when he had no experience at all.  Burisma is an energy company and Hunter had no energy experience.  He was kicked out of college for doing too much drugs.  That was his qualification”

                “The investigation was over when he was fired”

                “False. Shokin has sworn in an affidavit that he was still investigating Burisma and was only fired because of Biden.  Don’t you think that Biden should’ve at least recused himself since it involved his kid? There were three investigations open, only one was closed.”

                “We are getting off topic.  This is about the Whistleblower.  California Democrat Adam Schiff, who is very hesitant to say anything he can’t back up, was shocked by these revelations and has claimed he just heard about this.  He’s an impeccable source.  Why would you believe this guy who you only know from a bar over a respected congressman?”

                Theo laughed, “Adam Schiff lied to you for three years about the Russian collusion hoax.  He is anything but hesitant to say things.  You claim that everyone found out a week ago.  Well here’s a tweet from Adam Schiff, who you have told us is an impeccable source, this tweet is from 8/28/19, which was more than two weeks ago.  It’s actually a month ago, ‘Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.’  What does that sound like to all of you?  Oh yea, the whistleblower report!  Let’s move on from Schiff as I already told you he’s not credible.  Here’s 60 minutes with Pelosi that was taped over two weeks ago.  Pelosi says, ‘But I know what was in the call.’  I ask you, ‘How did she know what was in the call?”

                “Pelosi’s next statement is that it’s public information”

                “Was it though?  You just told me that nobody knew about until two weeks ago.  If it was public information, then you’re story can’t be true.  Pelosi can’t be right that it was in the public domain if congress didn’t know it about it at the time she said that.  Right?”

                The student came back with a bottle of gin, tonic and ice.  Theo thanked him and Professor Vikas snapped, “What are you doing?”

                “You said it was informal.”

                “You’re drinking.  This is a mockery of this proceeding”

                “Yes it is.  You told me at the bar that I take advantage of people with alcohol affected brains.  You ignore that my mind is also affected with alcohol.  This debate isn’t going well for you by objective reasons.  I want to make it fairer by drinking”

                The professor shook his head and opined, “You mention Trump’s personal lawyer.  That is Rudy Giuliani.  Every time he gets on TV, he hurts Trump by spouting his lies.  He humiliates Trump and there’s internal pressure to shut him up.”

                “I work in the White House.  I am on the inside.  There is no internal pressure.  Of course, if you don’t believe me, here’s a letter that Joe Biden sent to various news outlets like Fox News, ABC, MSNBC and CNN demanding that Rudy Giuliani is kept off the air.”

                “If you read the letter, Biden admits several times that the media does a good job debunking Giuliani’s points in real time.  It is not a confession”

                “Your point to me was that Giuliani is hurting Trump.  If that were true, why would Biden want Giuliani off the air?  Wouldn’t it help Biden if someone who’s damaging to Trump stays on the air?  I’m an economist, we study incentives.  Ask yourself, what would be Biden’s incentive for sending that letter?  Does it make sense that it’s because he’s doing damage to the president or is Giuliani hurting Biden and the Democrats?  What seems more plausible?”

                ”Biden understands the integrity of the office of the president.  Giuliani hurting the office, not the man, is why he wants him off the air.”

                “That doesn’t even resemble a rational thought.”

                There’s laughter from the crowd and the professor sternly cries out, “I want to know how he was so prepared.  You have all these articles ready for you.  You somehow had them all saved on your e-mail.  What student prepared you?  Someone set me up.”

                “I keep notes on my phone.  A lot of people do.  But, you challenged me.  You came to the bar and told me about this debate.  Obviously, you knew about it.  The question isn’t how was I prepared, it’s how were you not?”

                “I have refuted everything you said.”

                “The crowd will be the judge of that.  Back to the Whistleblower.  Here’s a piece where Sean Davis reveals that they recently changed the rules on what constitutes a Whistleblower.  They removed the rule that you have to have firsthand knowledge of the conversation.  This reminds me of Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix.  Remember when Dumbledore scolds Professor Umbridge for doing something she’s not legally allowed to do.  She then calls the ministry of magic and gets the law changed so she can do it.  The walls of Hogwarts castle is filled with all the new ministry decrees based on things that Umbridge wanted to do to undermine Dumbledore but wasn’t allowed.  This is the same concept”

                “The piece says some time between last year and August 2019.  The rule could’ve been changed a year ago.  Not necessarily right after the conversation between Trump and Zelensky.”

                “Why would they secretly change it?  Almost like they didn’t want Trump to know that the law had been changed.  Why would they want that?  Maybe to catch him off guard and set him up?”

                “That’s speculation.  Sometimes the person with firsthand knowledge is afraid to come forward”

                “A lot of people had firsthand knowledge of the call.  Don’t you find it suspicious that none of them came forward?  If the initial person who heard it wasn’t bothered enough, why would someone that heard it from someone else be so bothered?  This is called hearsay and, as of right now, hearsay is not admissible in court but they may change that rule next because they can’t get Republicans with the rules now.”

                “Hearsay is an outdated principle”

                “Our constitution says you have a right to face your accuser.  That’s why it’s not admissible.  The person that heard it from your accuser is not your accuser”

                “Who cares of the reason? The bottom line is they changed the rule so new rule applies”

                “Does it though?  Here’s the 9/23/19 change to the urgency requirement, which is what the Whistleblower referenced.  Odd that he wrote it with legal footnotes and references.  Usually whistleblower complaints are just a description of what happened.  You don’t have legal cases referenced.  This addendum, four days before this controversy, they changed the guidelines.  There’s a suspicious footnote that it only refers to senior intelligence officials.  For those of you who don’t know, that doesn’t include the President.  It also provides how it can be shared with congress.  Here is the exemption for POTUS.”

                “We are in unprecedented times.  I thought we had to yield to each other.  What happened to decorum?”

                The moderator looked confused, “Ummm, you guys have been doing a good job going back and forth.  You’re not even really interrupting each other so I’m just letting it slide”

                The professor blurted out, “These are unprecedented times.  We need transparency”

                “This president has been the most transparent president in American history”

                “We need the transcripts of all his conversations”

                “Absolutely not.  It was a mistake the first time.  You guys still pretend he said things he didn’t and the transcript is out.  Trump is under no obligation to tell the media anything.  Schiff wants the transcripts with Putin so he can twist more things around just like he did with Zelensky.  The only precedent is this week.  You can’t release the transcript.  There are two things done best behind closed door; sex and diplomacy”

                “If he has nothing to hide, why be against it?”

                “If the Whistleblower is so legitimate, why hide his identity?”

                “60 minutes reports that the Whistleblower fears for his life.”

                “Yea, speaking about precedent; we heard this a couple years ago.  A man named Stefan Halper.  He set up George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn and Carter Page at his Cambridge campus in London.  As I told you earlier, it was England that did all the spying on Trump and his team and passed it to US counterparts.  Everyone said he can’t be questioned because his life is in danger.  Three years later, he’s still alive.”

                “We aren’t looking for all of the conversations; just the ones that he put on the top-secret server.  Never before have presidents decided their conversations with foreign leaders were top-level classification.”

                “Unfortunately, our professor is lying again.  Here’s Susan Rice of the Obama administration saying that Obama put calls on the top secret server too.”

                “She also claims it was rare”

                “Well, people didn’t leak things like they do in the Trump administration.  The intelligence community isn’t against the president like they are Trump.  When you have as many enemies as Trump, you need to be more careful with classification.”

                “Donald Trump is the president of the rich.  Obama championed the middle class”

                “Median income has risen $ 4,144 since Trump took office.  That’s 6.8%.  After 8 years of Obama, the median income raised $1,000, or 1%.  Who champions the middle class again?”

                “Obama had an economy that had collapsed so bad they called it ‘the great recession.’  It was the worst collapse since the Great Depression.  You can’t blame a slow recovery on Obama”

                “What are you talking about?  If you hit rock bottom, you have a long way to go up when you’re at the bottom.  Even if he gets to even, that’s a huge increase.  He didn’t do that though.  Trump had to rise to new highs and break records.  Obama just had to get to even but he couldn’t even do that.”

                “I will not standby and listen to your racist attacks on Barack Obama”

                “Why is it racist?  Because it’s not worshipping him?  When is criticizing, racist?  When the president is black?”

                “Yes”

                “No, you can criticize people’s performance regardless of their race.  Blacks aren’t little kids.  You don’t need kid gloves.  They can handle criticism”

                “Don’t justify your racism in this Ivy League bastion of intellectual excellence”

                “You are ruining that reputation.  I can’t even do that because I don’t represent the university.”

                “You even look like a racist with your bald head”

                Theo laughed, “Wow, attacking my looks.  DIdn’t you yell at me for generalizing and stereotyping?  Didn’t you just stereotype bald people?”

                “I’ve said all I wanted to say.  Do you have any most lies you want to profess?”

                “No, I’m done laying down truth.”

                “Then let’s put this to a vote on who won the debate”

                The moderator announced, “Okay, so if you logon to the website barfight.Georgetown.com, you can vote on the winner.  We’ll give you two minutes to vote.  Voting is open now. 

                The screen lit up with the website.  After two minutes, the moderator called, “Alright voting is closed”

                Theo poured himself another drink and took a long sip.  He knew he was going to lose.  It was enemy territory.  The moderator stated, “Alright, let’s find out if the alcohol affected Theo was able to take down the respected professor.”

                Theo snickered.  He didn’t care about the results.  When arguing with liberals, it wasn’t about convincing the liberal, it’s a third person who may be on the fence listening in.  The screen lit up and a bar graph was shown.  Theo hardly paid attention but was alerted when the professor scoffed and stormed out of the room.  Theo looked up and saw that 70% of people voted for Theo.  His eyes went wide and he turned to the crowd.  He gave them a nod and mouthed “Thank You”

                The moderator could tell Theo was shocked so he chimed in, “Congratulation Theo.  Seems like you need to give young impressionable college students more credit in their ability to judge objectively”

                Theo responded, “I’m just glad you don’t think ‘objective’ is a dirty word.

                “Yea, maybe you can give us more credit.”

                “I appreciate you judging fairly.  Now, I need to go home.”

                Theo got up and shook hands with the moderator.  As he walked out, he shook a lot of hands as people congratulated him.  He left the building and went to the metro to go home.  Although it was over an hour train ride, he was stunned the whole way home.  He couldn’t believe he won.  He knew his information was better and his argument was far superior as he backed up his statements with articles but he really thought they would side with a Georgetown representative rather than an outsider.  He wrote it off that the drinking while debating endeared him to the younger crowd.  As he thought this, it crossed his mind that maybe he needs to give these college kids more credit.  It was just one example though.  The jury was out if it would be sustained.  Still though, he decided there was hope for the future. He got home and went to sleep with a smile.  The debate had cheered him up from a very stressful week at the White House.