Donald Trump had better get used to hearing this word

This week Donald Trump heard a word I suspect he isn’t very familiar with at all. “No.” This is the word that Merrick Garland, head of the Department of Justice, told Trump’s legal posse after they demanded a meeting with him.

“No.” In typical Trump fashion, the letter sent by his dwindling legal team was arrogant, cocky, and patronizing. Could Trump have had a hand in writing it? The legal team wanted one last chance to beg (Excuse me — ask) for leniency. They attempted an end run around Jack Smith. They reached out to the big man himself, Garland. And he quickly and ably shot them down.

“No.” No. A word Trump isn’t familiar with. All his life, he’s been entitled. He’s lived behind the walls of privilege where “no” isn’t a word used very much, at least not by him. He’s stiffed contractors. He’s conned voters. Over and over throughout his life, Trump has spun his grift, but now — his fate is in the hands of the justice-makers. And one of them — Garland just said no.

“No” is a word that will regularly become a part of the traitor’s vocabulary now. He is going to be hearing it a lot.

Can I continue to insult and degrade E Jean Carroll with impunity, he might ask?
No.

Can I continue to tell my supporters in wild meltdowns how bias the judge is to me?
No.

Can I be crowned as president and given a coronation?
No.

Can I get out of being indicted?
No.

Trump, in the upcoming months, will hear the word “no” more than any other word in the English language. There are more than a million words in the English language. And this one word — “no” will be the word that haunts the traitor. It’s the words of those seeking to bring him to justice. It’s the word of his judges, his district attorneys, and his opponents — no, Donald Trump.

In a world where he’s only heard yes, now the word no will follow him everywhere. No will haunt him, will plague him, will force him to the brink. One little word with so much power to undo one orange traitor. Will Donald Trump be able to put all this in the past? No.