Penn Jilette Says He Was In The Room When Trump Made Racially Insensitive Comments

The countdown has begun to the end of the Trump presidency. 

That's gonna end it?  I see. I'll notify the President.

You know, that if Penn Jillette says it, it's gotta be true!  Just look at his face! Why would anyone doubt him?

Question: Suppose it was true. Does that end a Presidency?  Does anybody know of Woodrow Wilson's racial beliefs?

Of course Penn Gillette is not going to end Trump's presidency.  The walls are starting to close in on trump and he has no honest defense for any of this. He thought he could come into the White House and run the presidency like a reality tv game show. It is all going to blow up in his face. He's a clown and an asshole Vic and the sooner people like you accept that the better off our country will be. 

If Trump was involved with Russia they are going to find out about it. It is all inevitable. 

He thought he could come into the White House and run the presidency like a reality tv game show

Oh that's it? 
To steal a line from Abraham Lincoln "let's have all our Presidents run it like a reality tv show". Get the economy going, build up our military and defend our borders!

It's not going to work like that Vic. People want a president they can be halfway proud of. 

Is there no one else in the republican Party that can propose policies that you like? It's all tied up with Trump? You are bound to be disappointed then because the writing is on the wall for Trump. Even if he is not impeached, his popularity has peaked. He will never ever achieve majority approval. Which means the GOP will lose control of congress in the fall elections. 

The Russia charge is the biggest political farce in US history

the only campaign we know with absolute certainly paid Russia for political dirt is Hillary and the left is fine with it because it was against Trump

Mueller is not investigating Hillary. If there were indications she was involved he would be. 

The right has gone down a rabbit hole I'm not sure some of them can get out of. 

Is there no one else in the republican Party that can propose policies that you like?

I used to vote for them - Conservative Republicans! The last one that delivered was Ronald Reagan.

It's all tied up with Trump?

Yes it is. Despite all the obstruction and hate directed at him, he is accomplishing what he promised. Congressional Republicans couldn't even deliver on their "repeal & replace" and they won't even try on immigration law. Iv'e wondered why that is and then I remembered something - something Trump said during the campaign. Trump told us all back then that he didn't need campaign contributions and that nobody would ever own him. In hindsight, it may have been the most important thing he ever told us about himself.

There it is, John.

Trump told us all back then that he didn't need campaign contributions and that nobody would ever own him.

Another lie bought and sold to the ever gullible.

He's "owned" by Putin & Obama both in different respects but owned just the same.

As far as the contributions...if that were true why did his campaign get caught soliciting British parliament members for donations?

Does anybody know of Woodrow Wilson's racial beliefs?

Don't forget Truman and LBJ !

Trump told us all back then that he didn't need campaign contributions and that nobody would ever own him. In hindsight, it may have been the most important thing he ever told us about himself.

So in your opinion, Trump's lie was the most revealing thing he told us about himself. Wow. 

BTW, for someone who claimed not to need campaign contributions, Trump manages to spend them without breaking a sweat. Some of the 'expenditures' have been to pay Jr's legal fees and others for multiple $15,000 a month 'no show' hush money 'jobs'. Oh and of course, there's the 'campaign' stops that include 'layovers' at his golf properties. Trump has screwed the RNC out of some $ because he and they can't seem to get on the same page about the purpose of his travel. 

I never said they were.  Just pointing out how nonsensical this is

According to the progressive Washington Post Hillary Clinton raised 1.4 Billion to Trump's 957 Million.
Furthermore:

" Clinton’s campaign received  16 percent  of its money in donations of $200 or less. Trump’s campaign received  26 percent  of its funds from small donations. In the 2012 election cycle, President Obama had raised  32 percent  of his total in small donations and Republican Mitt Romney had raised  5 percent ."

washingtonpost

Unlike many of my Conservative Republican congressmen/women, Trump dosen't have to worry about CA's agriculture lords. Thus the zero tolerance policy on illegal aliens.

Maybe you should keep up instead of trolling for proof....

The campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is continuing to solicit donations from foreign politicians, despite highly publicized FEC complaints against him, The Hill reported. Accepting donations from foreign nationals is in violation of FEC rules.  

According to the progressive Washington Post Hillary Clinton raised 1.4 Billion to Trump's 957 Million.

Which PROVES not a fucking thing. Nor does it refute one word I posted. 

Unlike many of my Conservative Republican congressmen/women, Trump dosen't have to worry about CA's agriculture lords. 

Right, but it sure looks like the Midwest agricultural lords have him by the short hairs, that's why Trump is pushing a $12 BILLION bailout for them. 

Thus the zero tolerance policy on illegal aliens.

That policy was instituted purely as 'a deterrent by the most cruel method possible'. They've backed off of it, BTFW. 

There were TV reality shows when Lincoln was POTUS?

Every time I see one of you proclaim that trump is accomplishing what he promised...I quit reading your comment.

I've been by passing a lot of comments these days

Every one of your posts reveals you as a Russian bot. They should have trained you better.

Every time I see one of you proclaim that trump is accomplishing what he promised...I quit reading your comment.

I'm not surprised. I assume that is the way many people handle bad news

Every one of your posts reveals you as a Russian bot. They should have trained you better.

I thought a bot was something mechanical.

Right, but it sure looks like the Midwest agricultural lords have him by the short hairs, that's why Trump is pushing a $12 BILLION bailout for them. 

Oh, so now you are alleging that he has accepted contributions from midwest farmers and now they own him?  Or you really know that the bailout is to soften the blow of those tariffs that were specifically targeting those farmers and are being disingenuous. Why not simply admit that you know Trump is doing things that others could not because they were owned by special interests? ...It's ok, we know the answer - you hate Trump and you hate what he's accomplishing.

That policy was instituted purely as 'a deterrent by the most cruel method possible'.

So when Obama tried it, it wasn't "the most cruel method possible"?

They've backed off of it, BTFW. 

As did Obama. They all had to.... They had to because the law/laws have the government caught in a no-win dilemma. It will take legislation to straighten it out, which congress is currently incapable of. If that day ever comes, it should be very simple to meet the nations two immigration needs: 1) To regain control of our borders so that WE decide who gets in and 2) Find a way to deal with all those who have entered illegally and live among us.

Oh, so now you are alleging that he has accepted contributions from midwest farmers and now they own him? 

Nope, that's NOT what I am alleging. Try again. 

Or you really know that the bailout is to soften the blow of those tariffs that were specifically targeting those farmers and are being disingenuous.

Yep, taxpayer funds will be used to placate Trump voters after he put their livelihood on the block. 

Why not simply admit that you know Trump is doing things that others could not because they were owned by special interests?

You know that Russia, Wall Street, Big Oil, Coal and donors like Adelson are 'special interests' right? 

It's ok, we know the answer

Who are 'we' Vic? 

- you hate Trump and you hate what he's accomplishing.

I don't hate Trump, I hate what he stands for and that his 'accomplishments' are detrimental to the nation as a whole. 

Oh and Trump's 'my tinny dick is right here' ties. I hate those too...

I hate what he stands for and that his 'accomplishments' are detrimental to the nation as a whole. 

That's right, just like I feel everything liberals and progressives have accomplished have been detrimental to this nation.

The 40-hour work week.

Weekends and vacations

Women’s Voting Rights

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Public schools.

Child-labor laws.

Health care benefits

National Parks/ Forests

Interstate Highway System

GI Bill

THE HORROR!

Your'e giving progressives credit for all those things?  How generous. 

It took you a while to compile that list. You were cautious enough not to give them credit for things like the Civil Rights Movement, which was something progressives supported, but was accomplished by black Americans. You instead list the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although proposed by LBJ, was passed with disproportionately by Republicans.  You see, those are things that you don't get credit for. I'll be glad to return to this subject later. Iv'e been thinking of an article on this very subject.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, although proposed by LBJ, was passed with disproportionately by Republicans. 

To be honest, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a bipartisan coalition of liberal Republicans (What was known then as the "Rockefeller Wing of the Republian Party which was liberal and does not exist within the small r republican gop of today) and liberal Democrats and signed by a Democratic President. The Dixiecrats who opposed the CRA were conservatives who almost all switched to the gop after Nixon embraced them in 1972 with his "Southern Strategy', but then you know this and still try to misrepresent these truths. Which asks a question. Why are you trying to re-write history? Why tell just half the whole truth? Civil Rights was a liberal agenda thing that was passed by the liberal wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties. There is no liberal wing of the gop today like there was way back in 1964. The Republicans who helped pass the CRA would not be welcomed at all in the damn gop of today...

Your'e giving progressives credit for all those things?  How generous. 

Thanks, I actually known for being so. 

It took you a while to compile that list.

Nope, just a couple of minutes, good researcher...

You were cautious enough not to give them credit for things like the Civil Rights Movement, which was something progressives supported, but was accomplished by black Americans.

You seem to be under the delusion that those two groups are mutually exclusive. Do you think that all 'progressives' are white? 

BTFW, I note that you dropped 'liberals' all of a sudden. Should I ask why or just make a blanket assumption about your motivations like you have consistantly done mine? 

You instead list the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although proposed by LBJ, was passed with disproportionately by Republicans. 

Oh now you're deflecting to parties Vic. As an old fart, I can remember a time when there were LIBERAL Republicans Vic. 

You see, those are things that you don't get credit for.

I haven't claimed credit for a fucking thing Vic. 

I'll be glad to return to this subject later. Iv'e been thinking of an article on this very subject.

Great! After a day of bread baking, I could use the comic relief. 

Most of those programs are unconstitutional

the left incorrectly mislabel the reasons for Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway system

Eisenhower Federal Highways Act. Liberals forget that Ike did this for NATIONAL SECURITY reasons

One of Eisenhower's enduring achievements was championing and signing the bill that authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956. [124] He justified the project through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as essential to American security during the Cold War . It was believed that large cities would be targets in a possible war, hence the highways were designed to facilitate their evacuation and ease military maneuvers.

Eisenhower's goal to create improved highways was influenced by difficulties encountered during his involvement in the U.S. Army's 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy . He was assigned as an observer for the mission, which involved sending a convoy of U.S. Army vehicles coast to coast. His subsequent experience with German autobahns during World War II convinced him of the benefits of an Interstate Highway System. Noticing the improved ability to move logistics throughout the country, he thought an Interstate Highway System in the U.S. would not only be beneficial for military operations, but provide a measure of continued economic growth. The legislation initially stalled in the Congress over the issuance of bonds to finance the project, but the legislative effort was renewed and the law was signed by Ike in June 1956

en.wikipedia

Today isn’t April Fools day.  We aren’t even close to January 2025

The countdown has begun to the end of the Trump presidency. 

Well, duh. Anybody knows this. Currently the countdown stands at 2350 days. That's how long it is until the next president is sworn in on January 20, 2025.

That's how long it is until the next president is sworn in on January 20, 2025.

The next president, regardless of who it is, will be sworn in on January 20, 2021.

That's how long it is until the next president is sworn in on January 20, 2025.

No...that might be Trump's parole hearing date...or maybe his son's, but Trump will be long gone before then.

Notice he refuses to do the special prosecutor's interview unless "obstruction of justice" is off the table?

Notice he refuses to do the special prosecutor's interview unless "obstruction of justice" is off the table?

That's reasonable enough. The special counsel wasn't tasked with investigating obstruction of justice and there's no evidence that anything Trump has done has had any impact on the investigation. And frankly, if you need a confession from Trump to make an obstruction case, you don't have much of a case.

That's reasonable enough.

Since when is it 'reasonable' for someone being interviewed by the FBI to preclude a line of questioning? 

The special counsel wasn't tasked with investigating obstruction of justice

Actually, he was tasked to pursue any crime unearthed by his investigation, hence Manafort is about to be found guilty of bank fraud and tax evasion. 

and there's no evidence that anything Trump has done has had any impact on the investigation.

Being successful isn't a requirement for an obstruction of justice conviction. The attempt alone is a violation of the statute. 

And frankly, if you need a confession from Trump to make an obstruction case, you don't have much of a case.

Trump need not 'confess'. Trump need only give probably false reasons for his actions that the prosecutors already KNOW is bullshit. Giuliani said it himself, all Mueller need do is believe the testimony of the plethora of Trump minions, who corroborate one another, over Trump's 'version' of the truth. Let's not forget that Hicks, Priebus, Sessions, McGahn, Coats and Rogers have all been interviewed by Mueller. None of them have the likelihood of 'taking the fall' for Trump. 

The white board on this thing must look like Carrie Mathison's while off her meds. 

Since when is it 'reasonable' for someone being interviewed by the FBI to preclude a line of questioning? 

Since the 4th Amendment. To put it in a very general way, you need a good reason to ask people questions. The special counsel was asked to investigate things related to the election, not the exercise of constitutionally authorized powers after the election.

Actually, he was tasked to pursue any crime unearthed by his investigation, hence Manafort is about to be found guilty of bank fraud and tax evasion. 

No, he was not. That's why a prosecutor in New York is prosecuting the case, not Mueller.

Trump need not 'confess'.

Then there's no reason to talk him, is there?

Trump need only give probably false reasons for his actions that the prosecutors already KNOW is bullshit.

So you think it's a good thing that we manufacture a perjury trap for the president? That's not going to benefit the country and it's outside the scope of the investigation anyway. 

The white board on this thing must look like Carrie Mathison's while off her meds. 

I can't disagree with that.

Since the 4th Amendment. To put it in a very general way, you need a good reason to ask people questions.

Mueller's mandate constitutes enough 'probable cause' to question Trump. Now, do you intend to answer my question or just continue to deflect? 

The special counsel was asked to investigate things related to the election, not the exercise of constitutionally authorized powers after the election.

You really should review the letter that outlines Mueller's appointment before making uninformed statements like that. 

No, he was not. That's why a prosecutor in New York is prosecuting the case, not Mueller.

Yes he IS and I'll tell you how I know that. Ready? 

Mueller SIGNED Manafort's indictments Tacos!  [sorry, couldn't help myself]

Then there's no reason to talk him, is there?

Since Mueller wants to conduct a complete and thorough investigation, yes there is.  

Oh and BTW, everyone has the right to speak in their own defense.

So you think it's a good thing that we manufacture a perjury trap for the president?

'WE' aren't 'manufacturing a fucking thing. NO ONE can be 'trapped' into committing perjury since all one need do is tell the fucking truth. 

That's not going to benefit the country 

Does that mean that you don't think that finding out the truth matters? 

and it's outside the scope of the investigation anyway.

Again, READ Mueller's appointment...you're wrong. 

I can't disagree with that.

WOW! Has hell frozen over? /s

Silence ensues. Facts have a way of doing that around here...

Yep, most likely already on to the next seed spouting the same debunked crap as nothing was learned from the last one by intention.

"But the stakes are now high, and I am an unreliable narrator," Jillette told Vulture. "I’m a storyteller. And storytellers are liars. So I can emotionally tell you things that happened racially, sexually, and that showed stupidity and lack of compassion when I was in the room with Donald Trump, and I guarantee you that I will get details wrong."

He said his experience on the show made it clear that Trump "would be a terrible president,” but he was perfect for a reality TV show.  

"I said that publicly every chance I got – while also saying he’s a good reality show," Jillette said. "You want someone capricious and petty and narcissistic to be on your reality show. And boy, I hate to say this, but playing tapes of him doing that job might be unfair. I want those tapes to be used against him, but it might be unfair."

What Penn Gillette is saying is that Donald trump is a racist and sexist asshole, and that it might make for good reality tv. 

Too bad for Trump we are not in reality tv with him any more. 

From the article

And yet, Jillette would not budge on specifics because "I am an unreliable narrator. What I do, as much as anything, is I’m a storyteller. And storytellers are liars. So I can emotionally tell you things that happened racially, sexually, and that showed stupidity and lack of compassion when I was in the room with Donald Trump and I guarantee you that I will get details wrong."

Uh, that's not really good for Trump. Jillette has a little bit of a guilty conscience. He knows this happened and he has said nothing for the three years Trump has been in politics. Omarosa coming out gave him a little courage. 

If he was called into court he would remember specifics fast enough.

He won't be impeached anyway...like I've said for ages, he's going to make a blanket pardon deal for him and his family then resign in disgrace all the while trying to blame it on the Democrats and his gullible posse will still believe him.

Is it illegal to say something?

Ever heard of a NDA Tex? Since Trump makes a practice of requiring them from every thing from the elevator operator to his Chief of Staff, it's pretty clear that Trump sure as hell wants to make saying something about him illegal.  

You don't appear to understand what a NDA actually is.

Again, wrong. 

And I was referring to whatever Trump or anyone else says is not considered illegal.

'anyone else', if under an NDA, can be sued for talking. In FACT, Trump is now suing Omarosa because he claims that she violated an NDA. 

I figured  most would recognize that. My bad.

Yes, I recognized that your post was a total failed, badly. 

Be obtuse if you choose.

Weren't you the one that posted the 'skirting' meta? That there qualifies in spades...

If someone doesn't want to sign a NDA. there is nothing forcing them to sign it.

Once one works for the US government as opposed to the Trump Campaign, one no longer owe fealty to Trump, one owes it to the Nation. 

Once signed, it is considered a legal contract.

Arguable but doubtful. 

Blah, Blah, Blah. Do you have a point? 

We're going to find out all about the NDA's Trump makes everyone sign. 

You're deflecting Tex.

Your question was:

Is it illegal to say something?

Which I answered by citing the FACT that NDAs make it illegal for Trumps minions to say anything 'bad or mean' about him or his family. The motivation behind WHY Trump's minions sign those NDA's is irrelevant. The NDAs DO indeed make 'it illegal to say something'.

Hope that clears things up and puts you back on track. 

Tex highlighted in one post:

is a legal contract

Now Tex wants to pretend that violating a legal contract isn't 'illegal'. 

There are no criminal penalties for breaking a NDA contract.
It isn't illegal to break one. It is a contract, and if you break one, you can be sued for damages, You can not be put in jail for it.

So it's your posit that unless something incurs the penalty of incarceration, it's not illegal.

Well gee Tex, then we can throw away the Bill of Rights and at least half of the US Code. I knew y'all were all about deregulation but I think you may be setting your sights too high.

BTFW, you are required to post a link with verbatim quotes from websites with copyrights.

The owner of NT won't go to jail but it IS illegal.../s

Are you disputing, (still) that an NDA is a legal contract?

No thinking person would think that I did. 

Or are you disputing the fact that people don't go to jail for breaking that particular contract?

What I'm disputing is the relevance of whether they 'go to jail' or not. Is that clear enough or do you need further explanation? 

And if you want to know what I asked, and in the context I asked it, read my post 2.1.4 again.

Been there, read that.

Then you jumped in about NDA's. I see nowhere in the article that Penn ever signed a NDA with Trump.

You didn't ask if it was illegal for Penn to say something. You asked if it was illegal 'to say something'.

If you have evidence he did, then post it.

You're deflecting, AGAIN! What Penn signed or didn't sign is irrelevant. NDAs make it illegal to 'say something'. You may get it eventually...

That is specifically why I asked if it was illegal to say something (meaning Trump can say whatever he wants)and why Penn would be called to testify.

Well if Trump DENIES that he said something and Penn can refute that denial, he could rightly be called to testify to prove, once again, that Trump is a fucking liar. 

Please pay attention.

Oh I am. That's why I noticed that your question isn't about Penn saying something could be 'illegal', it's about your allegation that anything Trump says can't be ruled as 'illegal'. 

I'm sure that Trump would appreciate your grant of immunity that no other American enjoys. 

If Trump used a racial slur it is still legal. Not a good thing to do, but not illegal. There seems to be something personal about it for you. Why is that?

You just don't get it Tex. Trump has threatened Simon and Shuster with a lawsuit and is demanding arbitration with Omarosa. Since S&S has a pretty strong reputation, I presume that they vetted Omarosa and their legal team ruled that Omarosa isn't limited by a NDA, especially for anything that happened after Nov. 2016. 

Those are only two of a plethora of lawsuits making it through the courts. Every one of those lawsuits has a potential for a thingy called discovery and depositions [testimony] from witnesses and the principles. 

As Omarosa stated, she produces receipts and has tapes to back up the claims she made in her book. It's only defamation if it isn't true. Trump has already lied about his statements and he's thrown out names like Mark Burnett to support his lies. Everyone in the room, key grips, cameramen, makeup and hair and Mark Burnett could be called to testify in deposition if Trump insists on litigation. NDA's do NOT protect a defendant/plaintiff in a deposition.

That in fact, is one of the biggest reasons why Trump will NEVER sue the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct, as he promised that he would. Trump has NO desire to be deposed and he sure as hell doesn't want his staff, especially his butler, deposed. 

During the campaign, Trump was deposed for his lawsuit against Chef Jose Andres. It was very enlightening. Trump pounds his chest and pretends to be the 'great deal maker' yet under oath, he admitted that he had NOTHING to do with the contracts @ the DC Hotel except to sign on the dotted line. Trump admitted that he didn't know WTF the contract said and that he didn't have anything to do with the negotiations. In short, Trump was a figurehead. It was embarrassing...you should go watch the video, he squirms for 90 minutes and sounds clueless.

BTW, the guy that NEVER settles lawsuits, settled the lawsuit with Andres. 

So the left is still churning the gossip mill hoping something tangible pops out. Good luck with that. If there isn't a tape then it didn't happen. 

And if there is a tape, it still didn't happen because the tape will be 'fake news,' right Armando?

No more fake than Joy Reid's hacked blog.

And if there is a tape, it still didn't happen because the tape will be 'fake news,' right Armando?

And even if there was a tape, and it was released, using that word isn't illegal.....

using that word isn't illegal

What a clever way of taking license!

So, is this the "family values" of the right we hear so much about?

What a clever way of taking license! So, is this the "family values" of the right we hear so much about?

Are you seriously saying that should have used a sarcastic tag?  I thought it would have been obvious.

And even if there was a tape, and it was released, using that word isn't illegal.....

So now that standard is whether something is prosecutable.

Thank you for illustrating just how far off the rails Trump has driven our country. 

Thank you for illustrating just how far off the rails Trump has driven our country. 

Okay, so from now on I will use a sarcastic tag in my comments....

The prisons are full of people where a tape did not convict them.

Trump has consistently denied the tapes exist. "Apprentice" creator Mark Burnett also denied it in 2016, and on Tuesday, Trump tweeted that Burnett called him Monday night and again denied there were any such tapes. Earlier this month, Burnett told USA TODAY there are no tapes of Trump making racist or sexist comments during production on "The Apprentice."

That's because Burnett has burned them already. Why is Burnett in the bag for trump? I thought he was Hollywood Elite? Aren't the Hollywood Elite all anti-trump?

Trump will throw Burnett under the bus eventually. Snakes in the grass have no loyalty or conscious. 

Penn Jillette is a class act.   And what he claims is verrrrrrry easy to believe given how Trump operates.   Not really anything we do not already know, but Jillette is an unlikely witness here so I suppose that is interesting.