;)
The Commentariat -- November 27, 2019
Afternoon Update:
Shocking Report Will Reveal Barack Obama Is Not a Master Spy. Adam Goldman of the New York Times: "The Justice Department's inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump's campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia's election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general's report said. The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump's phones tapped.... The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives' claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page -- eavesdropping that Mr. Trump's allies have long decried as politically motivated. But Mr. Horowitz will sharply criticize F.B.I. leaders for their handling of the investigation in some ways, and he unearthed errors and omissions when F.B.I. officials applied for the wiretap, according to people familiar with a draft of the report."
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: C'mon, you-all were sure Barack was down in the bowels of Trump Tower just a-tippity-tip-tappin' them wires. Drat! Turns out it was not Barack in the basement with a bug. Another Trump conspiracy theory bites the dust. (Well, okay, Trump probably won't give up on it. Stay tuned for Sean Hannity's report on Michael Horowitz, deep-state mole for George Soros & the international liberal cabal.)
William Saletan of Slate: "Republicans claim that two private remarks by ... Donald Trump clear him of wrongdoing in the Ukraine scandal. The first remark, supposedly made on Aug. 31 to Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, was that Trump would 'never' require Ukraine to do anything for him in order to get military aid he had suspended. The second remark, made on Sept. 7 or Sept. 9 to Gordon Sondland..., was that Trump wanted 'nothing' from Ukraine [Mrs. McC: The 'no quid pro quo' conversation].... But now it turns out that by the time Trump spoke to Johnson, the president already knew he was under investigation for extorting Zelensky. This discovery, reported on Tuesday night [also linked below] by the New York Times, inverts the meaning of Trump's statements to Johnson and Sondland. Trump wasn't telling the truth. He was launching his cover story."
Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "As Rudolph W. Giuliani waged a public campaign this year to unearth damaging information in Ukraine about President Trump's political rivals he privately pursued hundreds of thousands dollars in business from Ukrainian government officials, documents reviewed by The New York Times show. Mr. Giuliani ... has repeatedly said he has no business in Ukraine, and none of the deals was finalized. But the documents indicate that while he was pushing Mr. Trump's agenda with Ukrainian officials eager for support from the United States, Mr. Giuliani also explored financial agreements with members of the same government.... Prosecutors and F.B.I. agents in Manhattan are examining whether Mr. Giuliani was not just working for the president, but also doing the bidding of Ukrainians who wanted [Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch] removed for their own reasons...." ~~~
~~~ Rosalind Helderman, et al., of the Washington Post: "... Rudolph W. Giuliani negotiated earlier this year to represent Ukraine's top prosecutor for at least $200,000 during the same months that Giuliani was working with the prosecutor to dig up dirt on vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with the discussions. The people said that Giuliani began negotiations with Ukraine's top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, about a possible agreement in February. In the agreement, Giuliani's company would receive payment to represent Lutsenko as the Ukrainian sought to recover assets he believed had been stolen from the government in Kyiv, those familiar with the discussions said. The talks occurred as Giuliani met with Lutsenko in New York in January and then in Warsaw in February while he was also gathering information from Lutsenko on two topics Giuliani believed could prove useful to Trump: the involvement of Biden, and his son, Hunter, in Ukraine and allegations that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election.... A person familiar with the negotiations described a series of contracts that were drafted earlier this year in which Giuliani would have worked for Lutsenko or separately, the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Trump was right when about one thing he told Bill O'Reilly (story linked below) while trying to distance himself from Rudy: "Rudy has other clients, other than me. He's done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years." Trump's "Rudy who?" chat with O'Reilly seems to have been a "response" to the NYT & WashPo stories linked above, in that reporters most likely called the White House for comment yesterday. The distancing from Rudy also may mean Trump is keeping tabs on the SDNY investigation of the Three Stooges, and that the investigation is not going well Rudy. BTW, if Trump was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why would he hire a lawyer who has "done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years"? Wouldn't that lawyer have been working with corrupt Ukrainians over the years?
Adam Serwer of the Atlantic: "Donald Trump is a war-crimes enthusiast.... Although Trump was talked out of authorizing torture by his advisers, the president's ardor for violations of the laws of war has manifested itself in his decisions to intervene in war-crimes cases.... In four separate cases since the beginning of his presidency, and for the first time in the history of modern warfare, an American president has aided service members accused or convicted of war crimes, against the advice of his own military leadership. The clearances eroded the rule of law, as well as institutional safeguards against authoritarianism and the politicization of the military. But they were also a rational extension of Trumpist nationalism, which recognizes no moral, legal, or institutional restraints on the president worth upholding, and which sees violence against outsiders as a redemptive expression of national loyalty."
Katelyn Polantz of CNN: "Michael Flynn..., Donald Trump's first national security adviser, will not be sentenced on December 18 as previously planned, a federal judge said Wednesday, to await the release of an internal Justice Department report on FBI surveillance. Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed with prosecutors and Flynn's lawyers, who asked for Flynn's long-awaited sentencing hearing to be delayed because they won't be fully prepared for it until the DOJ inspector general's report regarding FBI surveillance as part of its early Russia probe is published. The inspector general's review is due out December 9.
Mark Walker & Zolan Kanno-Youngs of the New York Times: "An examination of Federal Emergency Management Agency data and records demonstrates the degree to which the recovery from Hurricanes Maria and Irma on America's Caribbean islands has been stalled compared with some of the most disaster-prone states on the mainland, leaving the islands' critical infrastructure in squalor and limbo.... That disparity underscored how a federal government in Washington has treated citizens on the mainland, with voting representatives in Congress and a say in presidential contests, compared with citizens on the islands. Further complicating the recovery are issues of corruption, often amplified by President Trump and, islanders say, questions of race."
~~~~~~~~~~
Kyle Cheney, et al., of Politico: "The House Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing next week on the impeachment of ... Donald Trump, as Democrats move quickly to the next stage of a process that is likely to lead to the third-ever presidential impeachment before the end of the year. The hearing, scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 4, will feature a panel of constitutional experts and focus on the definition of an impeachable offense and the 'procedural application of the impeachment process,' according to committee aides." ~~~
~~~ Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times: "The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Trump's legal team to participate in its first public impeachment hearing next week, when lawmakers plan to convene a panel of constitutional scholars to inform their debate over whether the president's actions warrant his removal from office.... Mr. Nadler asked the White House to inform him by Sunday if the president or his lawyer wants to participate in the initial hearing, and reminded Mr. Trump that House rules empower him as chairman to curtail that involvement if 'you continue to refuse to make witnesses and documents available' related to the inquiry." Nadler also told Trump his lawyers would have to behave themselves "consistent with the rules of decorum and with the solemn nature of the work before us." A CNN story is here.
** Michael Schmidt, et al., of the New York Times: "President Trump had already been briefed on a whistle-blower's complaint about his dealings with Ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country in September, according to two people familiar with the matter. Lawyers from the White House counsel's office told Mr. Trump in late August about the complaint, explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to Congress, the people said. The revelation could shed light on Mr. Trump's thinking at two critical points under scrutiny by impeachment investigators: his decision in early September to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine and his denial to a key ambassador around the same time that there was a 'quid pro quo' with Kyiv. Mr. Trump used the phrase before it had entered the public lexicon in the Ukraine affair. Mr. Trump faced bipartisan pressure from Congress when he released the aid. But the new timing detail shows that he was also aware at the time that the whistle-blower had accused him of wrongdoing...." A summary of the Times report appears in the Hill.
Jeremy Herb, et al., of CNN: "The White House budget office's first official action to withhold $250 million in Pentagon aid to Ukraine came on the evening of July 25, the same day ... Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke on the phone, according to a House Budget Committee summary of the office's documents. That withholding letter, which was among documents provided to the committee, was signed by a career Office of Management and Budget official [Mark Sandy], the summary states. But the next month, OMB political appointee Michael Duffey signed letters taking over the decision to withhold both the Pentagon and State Department aid to Ukraine from the career official. A hold was placed on the Ukraine aid at the beginning of July, and the agencies were notified at a July 18 meeting that it had been frozen at the direction of the President, a week before the Trump-Zelensky call.... Sandy testified before House impeachment investigators in a closed-door deposition, while Duffey defied a subpoena." See related WashPo story by Erica Werner, linked below.
Olivia Beavers of the Hill: "House Democrats on Tuesday released the remaining witness transcripts from their impeachment inquiry into President Trump. The three House committees that led the closed-door depositions released interviews with Philip Reeker, the acting assistant secretary of State in charge of European and Eurasian Affairs, and Mark Sandy, a senior Office of Management and Budget official. The document release comes as the House Intelligence Committee plans to work through the Thanksgiving holiday to compile a report for the House Judiciary Committee to use in determining whether to draft articles of impeachment against Trump over allegations that he pressed Ukraine's president to interfere in the 2020 election by opening two investigations that would benefit Trump politically." ~~~
~~~ Here is the transcript of Sandy's testimony, via the Hill. Here is Reeker's testimony, also via the Hill. ~~~
~~~ ** Erica Werner of the Washington Post: "Two officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget recently resigned while voicing concerns over the holdup on Ukraine aid, a career employee of the agency told impeachment investigators, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday. Mark Sandy, the only OMB official to testify in the impeachment inquiry, did not name the employees in question. He said one worked in the OMB legal division and described that person as having a 'dissenting opinion' about how the security assistance to Ukraine could be held up in light of the Impoundment Control Act, which limits the ability of the executive branch to change spending decisions already made by Congress. The other person, who resigned in September, 'expressed some frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold,' Sandy said. Sandy, the agency's deputy associate director for national security programs, testified on Nov. 16, becoming the first OMB official to do so after political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to participate in the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry. His testimony is the first public confirmation that the dispute at the OMB over handling of the Ukraine aid became so intense that it contributed to resignations from the agency."
** Why Are There Big Ole Tire Tracks on Your Jacket, Rudy? Bloomberg (partial) via digby: "Donald Trump denied directing Rudy Giuliani to go to Ukraine to look for dirt on his political rivals, in an interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. 'No, I didn't direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior,' Trum told O'Reilly in an interview streamed on the internet on Tuesday. Giuliani has said publicly that he conducted an investigation 'concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption' on Trump' behalf. Asked by O'Reilly what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine, Trump said 'you have to ask that to Rudy.' 'Rudy has other clients, other than me,' Trump said. 'He's done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years.'" ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Allow me to remind Rudy what Trump said when asked on AF1 why Michael Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels $130K: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen." Kinda word-for-word, isn't it, Rudy? Just change the name of the crooked lawyer. Jeff Mason of Reuters (April 5, 2018): "Asked if he knew about the payment to Daniels, Trump said 'No.' Asked if he knew where the money came from to pay Daniels, Trump told reporters, 'No, I don't know.'" Oh, P.S. Both of those were lies, as Mueller's team proved. Better hang onto that iPhone with all the evidence, Rudy. ~~~
~~~ Anyhow, Trump -- who says he has "one of the greatest memories of all time," seems to have forgot all about that "perfect" phone call with President Zelensky. You know, the call where Trump asks Zelensky to find out about the Crowdstrike server, the call where Trump tells Zelensky he wants him to talk to Giuliani about the server. "Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great." Trump says again moments later, "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call." and again, "I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call." (Trump told Zelensky he wanted him to look into the Bidens & to talk to Bill Barr about their corrupt acts: "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.") But, no, Trump has no idea what Rudy was doing in Ukraine. You have to ask Rudy. ~~~
~~~ digby (linked above): "Rudy Giuliani put a lot of people behind bars over the course of many years. There is no way in hell that he will allow himself to go to jail like Cohen and Manafort even for a day."
This is attorney client privilege so I will withstand whatever malicious lies or spin you put on it. -- Rudy Giuliani, to the Washington Post in response to the story that follows ~~~
~~~ Rudy Giuliani, International Man of Misery. Rosalind Helderman, et al., of the Washington Post: "While in Spain [in August to press a top aide of Ukraine President Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, Rudy] Giuliani stayed at a historic estate belonging to Venezuelan energy executive Alejandro Betancourt López, who had hired Trump's personal attorney to help him contend with an investigation by the Justice Department into alleged money laundering and bribery, according to people familiar with the situation. A month later, Giuliani was one of several lawyers representing Betancourt in Washington. The lawyers met with the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division and other government attorneys to argue that the wealthy Venezuelan should not face criminal charges as part of a $1.2 billion money-laundering case filed in Florida last year, said the people.... Betancourt is not one of the eight men charged in the case.... But ... he is referred to in the criminal complaint as a uncharged co-conspirator, as previously reported by the Miami Herald. Giuliani's representation of Betancourt -- which has not been previously disclosed -- is a striking example of how Trump's lawyer has continued to offer his services to foreign clients with interests before the U.S. government while working on behalf of the president. And it shows how Giuliani -- who says he was serving as Trump's attorney pro bono -- has used his work for paying clients to help underwrite his efforts to find political ammunition in Ukraine to benefit the president." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) The New York Times report is here.
Pompeo Has Been Drinking the Red Kool-Aid. John Hudson of the Washington Post: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday that a debunked conspiracy theory pursued by President Trump accusing Ukraine, not Russia, of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the network of the Democratic National Committee is a worthy subject of investigation. In a news conference at the State Department, Pompeo was asked if the United States and Ukraine should investigate the conspiracy theory, which several former senior Trump officials have called a 'fictional narrative' with 'no validity.' 'Anytime there is information that indicates that any country has messed with American elections, we not only have a right but a duty to make sure we chase that down,' Pompeo told reporters.... Trump repeated this idea on Fox News last week. 'They gave the server to CrowdStrike..., which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian, and I still want to see that server.' CrowdStrike is not run by a wealthy Ukrainian. It is a California-based company co-founded by a Russian-born American tech executive." ~~~
~~~ Nicole Gaouette & Kylie Atwood of CNN: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to counter a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election and sidestepped a question about his willingness to testify before the House impeachment inquiry.... Donald Trump tweeted Tuesday morning that he would 'love to have Mike Pompeo, Rick Perry, Mick Mulvaney and many others testify about the phony Impeachment Hoax.' Asked about the tweet during a briefing with reporters at the State Department, Pompeo said 'when the time is right all good things happen.'... n the past Pompeo, who was Trump's first CIA director, has said that he supports the intelligence that Russian interfered in the 2016 election. But in recent months he has also suggested -- based on no evidence -- that Joe Biden could have interfered in the election."
Sergii Leschenko in the Kyiv Post: "To some of U.S. President Donald Trump's entourage, it's 'the conspiracy of the black ledger.' They're convinced that the exposure of Paul Manafort's secret payments in Ukraine was part of a scenario to destroy Trump 2016 presidential campaign by tarring Manafort, who was then Trump's campaign manager.... I want Ukrainian citizens, American politicians, and international journalists to operate with the first-hand information and not be victims of random claims or deliberate misinformation. Here's the true story as I know it:" --s ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Leschenko is a former member of the Ukraine parliament &, briefly, an advisor to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. A prolific political writer & blogger, Leschenko obtained 22 pages of the 800-page "black ledger" from a source, but it was not until three months later that a former top official in Ukraine's Security Service said the full ledger was dropped on his doorstep. The ledger details corrupt transactions involving former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych & politicians connected to Yanukovych. Leschenko's report is pretty interesting.
Darren Samuelsohn of Politico: "The Justice Department asked a federal judge Tuesday to put a temporary pause on her ruling that orders former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in the House impeachment probe, saying it needs the delay to pursue an appeal. While expected, the move from DOJ means that the primary congressional panel responsible for drafting articles of impeachment against ... Donald Trump likely won't hear anytime soon from McGahn, one of the star witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller's final report." (Also linked yesterday.)
Guardian @ 9:37 ET: “A lawyer who represents [John] Bolton and his former deputy at the national security council, Charles Kupperman, said the ruling in Don McGahn's case does not apply to his clients.... The officials' attorney argued that, because the House judiciary committee was specifically not seeking information from McGahn on 'sensitive topics of national security or foreign affairs,' the ruling could not provide guidance on whether his clients should testify." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Gee, I guess the Bolton/Kupperman lawyer didn't do a very good job of reading the ruling. As Charlie Savage of the NYT wrote (linked below), Judge Jackson "wrote that the law required not just Mr. McGahn, but 'other current and former senior-level White House officials' who receive a subpoena to appear, and that it made no difference 'whether the aides in question are privy to national security matters, or work solely on domestic issues.'" (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Update. Peter Baker of the New York Times talked to Bolton/Cooperman lawyer Charles Cooper. Cooper asserted that Judge Jackson made only "passing references" to national security matters, and those passing references “'are not authoritative on the validity of testimonial immunity for close White House advisers' whose 'responsibilities are focused exclusively on providing information and advice to the president on national security.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Andrew Desderio & Kyle Cheney of Politico: "The House Oversight and Reform Committee filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to enforce the panel's subpoenas seeking information about the Trump administration's failed efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.... The suit is an indication that Democrats believe their hand has been strengthened by the victory in the McGahn case as they seek documents related to other subpoenas that the Trump administration has defied. The House first voted to enforce the subpoenas in July, formally holding Barr and Ross in contempt of Congress for defying the committee's subpoenas seeking information about the administration's ultimately unsuccessful efforts to add a citizenship question to next year's census. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Barr or Ross for flouting the requests, arguing that the information Democrats were seeking was protected by executive privilege." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) The New York Times story is here.
This Explains a Lot. Mrs. McCrabbie: Here's something I didn't know or forgot: one of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher's attorneys is Marc Mukasey, the son of former U.S. Attorney General Mike Mukasey. Mukasey ALSO is one of Trump's attorneys in the Deutsche Bank/Capital One suit (lost that one yesterday). Mukasey, of course, has been working on both of these cases at the same time. But wait, there's more: Mukasey ALSO was a long-time law partner of Rudy Giuliani." Looks like we can stop blaming Fox "News" for Trump's interest in helping out war criminal Gallagher. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Addition to the Stupid Trump Remarks Log. Jonathan Chait: "[Monday], President Trump signed the Women&'s Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. The effect of this law is self-explanatory -- it creates a coin to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, ratifying women's suffrage. Or, at least, it is self-explanatory to everybody except Donald Trump, who was mystified as to why the 100th anniversary was not recognized earlier. After working his way through the prepared remarks, Trump interjected with his own riff. 'They've been working on this for years and years,' he said, suddenly wondering, 'And I'm curious, why wasn't it done a long time ago, and also -- well, I guess the answer to that is because now I'm president, and we get things done. We get a lot of things done that nobody else got done.'" After Sen. Marsha Blackburn (no genius herself) explained to Trump how the bill commemorates the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment & that it passed Congress without opposition, Trump again asked why it wasn't done sooner. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: I shouldn't be laughing. This is just one more indication of Trump's severe cognitive disorder. He doesn't (or no longer) knows that centennial means "100th anniversary," and he could not make the connection between what Blackburn explained -- "100 years" -- and a centennial event. This is also a function of his egomania: part of the reason he couldn't understand it is that he needed to make the point that previous presidents (Obama!) had screwed up by not celebrating this particular centennial years ago.
The Downside of Cloven Hooves. No reasonable person would believe that Devin Nunes' cow actually has a Twitter account, or that the hyperbole, satire and cow-related jokes it posts are serious facts. It is self-evident that cows are domesticated livestock animals and do not have the intelligence, language, or opposable digits needed to operate a Twitter account. Defendant 'Devin Nunes' Mom' likewise posts satirical patronizing, nagging, mothering comments which ostensibly treat Mr. Nunes as a misbehaving child. -- Adam Parkhomenko, in a court filing, asking to quash a subpoena from Devin Nunes
Sorry, Adam, Devin is not a "reasonable person." Not sure about his cow & his mom. But thanks for trying to explain to Devin the importance of oppositional digits to effective Twitter usage. Don't expect him to get it, though. -- Mrs. Bea McCrabbie ~~~
~~~ Hannah Wiley of the Sacramento Bee: "A Democratic strategist is refusing to disclose communications that could reveal the identity of anonymous Twitter users who criticize Rep. Devin Nunes, arguing in a new court filing that the accounts are clearly satirical expressions of political speech. Nunes, R-Tulare, has sued Twitter and anonymous social media users who run accounts known as Devin Nunes' Cow and Devin Nunes' Mom. Nunes' attorney last month issued a subpoena demanding records about them from former Democratic National Committee employee Adam Parkhomenko.... Parkhomenko's attorney argues that the Twitter accounts' language 'does not constitute defamation' and that courts are tasked with protecting anonymous communications in the interest of freedom of speech."
Emma Farge & Stephanie Nebehay of Reuters: "Greenhouse gas emissions surged to a record level last year and world temperatures could rise by more than twice the globally agreed warming limit if nothing is done, a U.N. report showed on Tuesday." --s The New York Times report is here. A WashPo report was linked yesterday.
Share Article
Reader Comments (12)
Is this thing about "warriors" new to the Pretender's limited vocabulary? I see it keeps popping up.
So Guiliani is a warrior too? Just like the murderous Seal the Pretender pardoned and now wishes to campaign for him?
Whadda crew!
I'd note that with about 2700 convicted murderers currently on death rows across the states, the Pretender has a ready pool of possible volunteer door to door canvassers for his 2020 campaign.
All he needs is another of his patented "deals" and a couple of Sharpies.
(CNN Business reports)
"Trump said Tuesday in Washington that the United States was in the 'final throes of a very important deal' on trade."
Sad news. Guess that very important deal is near death.
Gotta love that stable genius' unmatched command of language.
@Ken Winkes: Trump (or the CNBC reporter) used the word "throes" properly. It means a violent, painful or agonizing struggle, and can refer to something with an arguably positive outcome; e.g., "She was in the throes of childbirth."
Thanks, Bea
Shoulda thought of that. Got caught up in my urge to abuse the Pretender. Have to watch myself.
"Throes of passion," for instance, could, as I remember, have a positive outcome...
Watch this exchange between Christiane Amanpour and Jenna Ellis: Ms. Ellis keeps that smirky smile throughout while she touts her absolute loyalty to Trump. Interesting that throughout this experiment of a thug becoming president, we've had numerous female voices being the loudest in fealty to the master. Even Lindsey can't match these women.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/jenna-ellis-case-against-impeachment-b28uvs/
And speaking of loyalty–-we can put Hannity in this mix. Two nights ago while I was DCS (during commercial surfing) came across this half-wit going apoplectic over Elizabeth Warren's claim that her children went to public schools––seems her daughter did but her son did attend a private school ( I'm still not clear when or where). Well, our number one Fox found this unacceptable and said this:
"When someone who want to be president lies like this how can anyone vote for them?"
Gosh, I said aloud, one wonders!!!!!!!!
Ken: ""Throes of passion," for instance, could, as I remember, have a positive outcome..."
I remember them well.
Why am I not surprised?
"A White House official on Monday said that Conan, the military working dog that helped take down ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in northwest Syria in October, was a female.
However, a few hours later, a White House official said the dog was in fact a male..."
Does that make Conan transgender?
The link I put on just gives us the beginning of the exchange and even the transcript stops at that point. I don't know how to get the full exchange––but you get the flavor from the short bit––Ellis is just a younger version of Kellyann.
Unwashed,
Well, Conan better watch out. If she ever goes to certain (red-Trumpy) states that don't recognize transgender anythings, she might get in trouble if she pees in the wrong place.
And, pray tell, how does Fatty know she is a he? Did he get down on the floor and poke around? I'd guess he'd leave that to the half-pence, but that prob'ly wouldn't work either. If, upon closer inspection, the h-p decided that, yes indeedy, Conan is a she, he might get in hot water with Mother for getting up close and personal with another female.
What would his punishment be? A good pee-pee whacking? I'll have to leave it there. My eyes suddenly stopped working.
I see where Fatty sez that he'd LOOOOOOOVE to have three of his Ukraine flunkys, Pompeo, Perry, and Mulvaney, testify about the "phony impeachment hoax".
But when the time came, we'd get a tweet declaring that Oops...Mikey, Ricky, and Mickey (sounds like a trio of psychotic mice from a Merry Melodies cartoon) can't show up today to testify cuz they're all in a marathon game of Rummy 5000*. Oh, and Rudy can't testify neither. He's dealing. From the bottom of the deck, as usual.
Which brings me to another Trumpy Language Befuddlement. "Phony impeachment hoax"? If, as it seems, the word "phony" modifies the phrase "impeachment hoax", he's saying that there is no impeachment hoax. It's not real. It's phony. I suppose he could (and probably does) mean the adjectival phrase "phony impeachment" modifies the noun "hoax", which still results in a bit of a head scratcher because now he's saying that the phony impeachment is a hoax, which means it's real.
It's either "impeachment hoax" or "phony impeachment". Phony and hoax cancel each other out (kinda like a double negative 'cause basically what you're describing is a phony hoax) leaving just "impeachment".
Good job there little donnie. All the best words, as usual.
*When we were kids, my siblings and I, on a rainy summer's day, would turn a game of Rummy 500 into Rummy 5000. The blasted thing went on forever. No testifying for us.
And speaking of language kerfuffles, it's very possible that Trump meant "throws" instead of "throes", and the (immensely more literate) reporter guessed wrong. For Trump, throwing a deal has been a staple of his career. Oh, he probably doesn't mean to throw it, but incompetence always seems to win out. It's like when he gets used by some international thug (Putin, Kim, etc.) and tries to save face afterwards by declaring that he actually won, when in fact, he was...thrown...for a loss.
Bigly.
With Fatty, words (or werds? wirds? wyrds?) are never what they seem, or say what they should be saying or what you imagine they might be saying. Which reminds me of Alice's first meeting with Tweedledee and Tweedledum, who regale her with what sounds for all the world like Trumpian wird salid.
"'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'
'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.'"
Yeah. What he said.
Buried as a reply to an evangelical Christian's comment on Edsall's column today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/opinion/barr-liberals-family.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Thought the commenter deserved a crazy uncle so coyly applied for the job.
" Tom, don't want to serve as your crazy uncle here on Thanksgiving Eve, but have to ask what in or out of the world did you mean by, 'free government is only sustainable for a religious people who recognize a transcendent moral order?'*
I have many problems with religion but this transcendent thing is near top of the list. Do you mean a moral order (something I'm all in favor of) dictated wholly by someone or something other than human reason?
Certainly not by this president, I'd gather. And maybe not by the god of the Old Testament, who had his cranky, even murderous moments.
I'd go with the love thy neighbor part of the New Testament myself but have to say that it could be argued that many "family values" proponents skip over that when it comes to fhe favorite conservative hot button issues associated with sex (abortion and gender identity) and race. Not a lot of loving going on on those fronts.
No, the only reasonable path to creating cohesive, peaceful societies which maximize individual freedom, is a liberal democracy, in which its members take responsibliity for their own behavior and remain mindful of how that behavior affects everyone else.
Of course, no where is freedom absolute, nor would reasonable people to expect it to be, but what freedom is possible for people to achieve anytime they live together in the same place or on the same planet certainly won't be found in arbitrary dicta received from on High."
Not convincing, I know, but I always feel better after taking a swipe at sillinesss.
*(a proposition put forth by a number of recent conservative books which could have been written by the Catholic cabal on the SCOTUS)