By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a congressional hearing, Senator Rubio claimed to have never witnessed Donald Trump fall asleep. However, Representative Lieu countered this assertion by presenting a video from a Cabinet meeting showing Trump dozing off while Rubio was speaking. Lieu used this evidence to question Rubio’s candor and to highlight concerns about Trump’s attentiveness during critical discussions.
Read the original article here
It appears that Secretary of State Marco Rubio found himself in a rather awkward position, caught in a clear discrepancy regarding President Trump’s attentiveness during meetings. The situation unfolded when Rubio, when questioned, staunchly claimed that he had never witnessed the President falling asleep in any official capacity. This assertion, however, was met with a barrage of evidence, presented in the form of multiple video clips, which directly contradicted his statement. These clips, shown to Rubio, depicted President Trump appearing to doze off during various meetings, a stark contrast to the Secretary’s confident pronouncements.
The implication here is quite significant. When a high-ranking official like Secretary Rubio makes a definitive statement to Congress, there’s an expectation of accuracy and truthfulness. To be presented with irrefutable visual evidence that directly refutes such a statement raises serious questions about the integrity of his testimony and his willingness to acknowledge observable reality. It suggests a possible scenario where political loyalty or a desire to protect the President’s image may have overridden a commitment to providing truthful information to lawmakers.
One of the most striking aspects of this episode is the implication of what Rubio’s initial denial might mean. If he truly never observed the President sleeping in meetings, despite the presented footage, does that imply he himself was not fully present or attentive during those same crucial sessions? It’s a pointed question that arises directly from his own statement, highlighting a potential irony where his defense of the President’s wakefulness inadvertently casts doubt on his own engagement.
The discussion around a person’s sleep patterns, especially a national leader, can often be a delicate matter, but the context here is crucial. There’s a notable comment that anyone claiming to need only a few hours of sleep a night is either being untruthful or is experiencing significant health issues. Furthermore, the observation that daytime sleepiness coupled with nighttime insomnia can be indicative of certain encephalopathic conditions adds another layer of concern, suggesting that such behavior might not simply be a matter of being tired but could point to deeper physiological challenges.
This situation also brings to the forefront a broader concern about the pervasive nature of what some perceive as outright dishonesty from certain political figures. The sentiment expressed is one of frustration and disbelief that elected officials, particularly within the Republican party, would consistently resort to what is seen as barefaced lying. The question is raised as to how these individuals reconcile their public statements with their personal lives and families, suggesting a moral and ethical quandary.
Furthermore, the lack of any apparent immediate reaction from those present when the President is observed dozing off is also brought into question. The comparison to a classroom setting, where teachers would likely intervene to wake a sleeping student, highlights a perceived deficiency in accountability within the highest levels of government. The idea that someone should be called out, perhaps with a firm “Wake the fuck up! You work for us,” resonates with a public that believes elected officials are ultimately servants of the people.
The broader demographic implications are also considered, with the observation that electing presidents in their seventies inherently increases the likelihood of encountering age-related issues, including sleepiness during long meetings or hearings. The experience of observing older relatives or colleagues falling asleep in similar situations is cited as a relatable parallel, suggesting that this phenomenon is not entirely unexpected given the age of some leaders, and perhaps, as one comment suggests, it’s “pretty much what we voted for.”
The situation is further complicated by Rubio’s alleged doubling down on his initial statement, even after being shown additional video evidence. The accusation that he was “lying again” and “lying consistently to Congress” points to a pattern of behavior that, if true, is deeply concerning. The fact that he continued to deny the President was sleeping, even in a clip from a Memorial Day event for fallen soldiers, underscores the intensity of his defense.
This incident raises a critical point about the consequences of such actions. The question is posed: “If only lying to congress meant anything.” The hope is expressed that these documented instances of alleged deception will serve as ammunition in future political campaigns, holding individuals accountable for their past statements and actions. The contrast is drawn with a time when lying to Congress reportedly had tangible repercussions, a stark difference from the apparent lack of consequences in this current political climate.
The broader commentary also touches upon the role of the conservative media machine in shaping narratives. There’s a cynical view that they quickly seize upon sound bites to create a desired impression, and in this case, they might have successfully manufactured a narrative that overlooks or downplays the President’s apparent sleepiness. The idea that this is how they operate, “Mission accomplished,” suggests a deep-seated distrust in certain media outlets and their agendas.
The recurring theme of gaslighting is also prominent, with the frustration expressed at how easily truth can be distorted or dismissed as “fake news.” The comparison of editing a video of Biden to make him appear disoriented with the direct presentation of Trump appearing to sleep highlights a perceived double standard in how political figures are scrutinized and how their actions are interpreted by their supporters. The sheer audacity of people lying when the truth is “right in front of their eyes” is described as “un-fucking-believeable.”
The notion that this situation reflects a “cult” mentality is also voiced, implying a level of unquestioning devotion that overrides critical thinking and factual accuracy. The nickname “Old Dozin’ Don” reflects a growing public perception, and the description of individuals involved as “sleaze bags” with “no sense of shame” points to a profound disappointment with the ethical standards being displayed.
There’s a specific hope that Rubio’s tenure as Secretary of State will ultimately be detrimental to his political aspirations, particularly any ambition to run for president. The stark contrast between his past criticism of Trump as a “con man” and his current defense of him is noted, highlighting a significant shift in his public stance, which some attribute to a desperate pursuit of power. The labeling of these actions as characteristic of a “fascist” government further emphasizes the gravity with which some view these developments.
The legal ramifications of lying to Congress are explicitly mentioned, with the reminder that it is a federal crime punishable by fines and imprisonment. The sarcastic observation that “Good thing that lying to Congress isn’t a crime” underscores the frustration that such clear instances of alleged deception seem to go unpunished, leading to a general sense of impunity.
The commentary suggests that Rubio, now in a position of defending the President, has few options other than to protect his boss or risk losing his job. This positions him as a loyal operative rather than an independent statesman, a role that many find regrettable. The idea that he will ultimately be “forgotten” while the President’s behavior is documented hints at a legacy that might not be favorable.
The persistent question of when “accountability” will become a factor in political discourse is central to many of these comments. The stark contrast is drawn between the potential consequences for ordinary citizens who might engage in similar behavior – facing jail time – and the apparent lack of repercussions for powerful figures. The suggestion that the focus should shift to other specific instances of alleged misjudgment, like a premature declaration of war being over, indicates a desire for a broader examination of competence and decision-making.
The notion of Rubio providing a “cover” for the President is evident, with the question posed: “And? What will you now do with it? Nothing?” This highlights a pervasive sense of helplessness and resignation among those who feel that such revelations will ultimately lead to no meaningful change or accountability. The description of the involved parties as “pussies” further emphasizes this feeling of emasculation in the face of perceived political inaction.
The expectation that individuals within this administration will either lie or insult Congress, or both, reveals a low baseline for acceptable behavior. The repetitive nature of these alleged transgressions is described as “annoying,” indicating a weariness with the ongoing political drama.
Finally, the comment about Trump being “up all night tweeting” and then struggling to stay awake during the day offers a plausible, albeit unverified, explanation for his apparent sleepiness. The call to “Lock him up!” though perhaps hyperbolic, reflects the strong emotions and the deep desire for some form of justice and consequence among those who are disillusioned with the current political landscape. The collective description of these individuals as “scumbags” who “will lie about anything” encapsulates the profound distrust and disdain felt by a significant portion of the public.