Wondering on Wednesday (v187)

Anyone else out there wondering about stuff tonight?

For example, do you wonder whether president Trump dangled a little quid pro quo in front of Florida's Rep. Matt Gaetz if he tried to break into the room where other members of Congress, including Republicans, were meeting behind closed doors hearing testimony in Trump's impeachment inquiry? You know, maybe there's a job for Gaetz in the administration or on Trump's campaign if he continues to act like an idiot on the president's behalf?

Gaetz was the one who led the charge to the basement of the building where the committee hearings were being held behind closed doors.  And seriously, it's not like there are no Republicans in the room, and it's not like every single Democrat in the House is in the room, right?  The people in the room are the ones who sit on the committees who are charged with the investigation -- and I think if nothing else, Gaetz et al made it clear why they are not on those committees.

I also wonder why it is that politicians, in this day and age in particular, that are guaranteed to inflame things? I'm referring of course to the president's declaration that the impeachment investigation is a lynching. The president's tweet is at right.

And of course, while there were many folks who disavowed what he said, and there were many who found other politicians (Joe Biden among them - he apologized today for his comment in 1998) who have made similar comments over the years, there were others who appear to think that what Trump said is not only not offensive, but also true.  Need an example? 

This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American.

Yep, that's what Lindsey Graham, (R- Trump Organization) had to say about it. And being from South Carolina, where there were over 160 lynchings, I guess he'd know.

Seriously, this is nothing like a lynching, by any definition. It's not a death row trial, it's not an extra-judicial action by a mob, it's a Constitutional procedure being played out the way it should be, whether the president likes it or not, whether his defenders like it or not. And we know, with absolute certainty, that if the shoe were on the other foot and it was President Obama who had been accused of doing what president Trump is accused of (and has basically admitted to) the Republicans would be doing exactly the same thing, and they'd be doing it behind closed doors.

Why? No need to wonder, let's ask Trey Gowdy, the star of the BENGHAZI!!! hearings, of Fox News, and almost of the president's impeachment team, speaking back in March about former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's upcoming closed-door appearance:

Well, I think what we learned this past week is how utterly useless public Congressional hearings are. And this notion that you can unlock important information in five minute increments?

Yeah, nothing to wonder about in that statement is there? And of course, the Dems are trying to prevent any testimonial collaboration, since the folks they're interviewing could be considered to be hostile witnesses. I also wonder, with so many folks in Congress who are lawyers, why they would think that the investigation should be done in public? When was the last time a grand jury proceeding was held in public, the twelfth of never?

I'm also wondering how long the NY Times will be able to survive? I mean, the president is threatening to cancel  its subscription, according to his interview with presidential advisor Sean Hannity (R-Fox)

All these people for doing it from the New York Times, which is a fake newspaper — we don’t even want it in the White House anymore. We’re going to probably terminate that and The Washington Post. They’re fake.

And then, of course, there's the much more serious issue with the paper's role in the Hillary Clinton-Tulsi Gabbard kerfuffle. Here's how Raw Story explained things.

 The original piece quoted Clinton saying Russians have "got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. 

In fact,  the actual think Clinton said was that Republicans were grooming Gabbard to be a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020.

"Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary by suggesting that Russia was backing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for president and that Republicans were 'grooming' her as a third-party candidate, the Times said in a correct report.

This kind of thing is unacceptable. I mean, is there any wonder whether what Clinton really says can be damaging enough (hint: deplorables, anyone?), without her words being completely misinterpreted?

One more for tonight - a quick one. We learned that Anonymous, one of the adults in the room with the child-man that is Donald Trump who wrote a NY Times op-ed last year, has written a book titled A Warning.  Here's a refresher on what happened last September:

Trump lashed out at the anonymous author after the column’s publication. The president questioned both whether the author existed and whether the author had committed treason. He also demanded on Twitter that the Times turn over “the GUTLESS anonymous person” to the government “at once.” The Times did not.

So - the book will be out on November 12th, and between now and there'll be furious speculation on which senior White House official is Anonymous, and the wondering has begun anew that  Kellyanne Conway is high on the list of likely suspects. 

I wonder....