TGIF 2/14/20

Time to review the lists again...

Happy Valentine's Day - and for those who are celebrating in some way, large or small, congratulations - you're on the good list!

For those of you who think holidays like this are silly, guess what? You're also on the good list - because here at veritable pastiche, the tent is big enough for different opinions on holidays (especially the ones in December...).

Moving on to the bigger picture, I can't decide what kind of week Snitty Snitty Bill Barr is having. On the one hand, he's continuing to do exactly what president Trump wants him to do, but on the other hand he's complaining that the president making his wishes known are making it "impossible" for him to do his job. Honest, that's what he said.

...to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity.

And of course, the president assures us he's just doing what he's allowed to do, when he interferes and in particular when he attacks judges, which he has started doing with the Roger Stone case, and what he famously did with Judge Gonzalo Curiel earlier on. Here's a compilation of those attacks.

What else is going on this week? Oh - that's right: New Hampshire voters had a good week, with record-setting turnout in the Democratic primary and what's likely a record or near record narrow margin of victory for That Guy from Vermont. And even though I don't understand why, over 150,000 of them showed up to vote for Trump in the meaningless Republican primary. That's desire, I guess.  Other good weeks? Mayor Pete, who earned just as many NH delegates as the "clear front runner," and Amy Klobuchar, who picked up six delegates. Papa Joe left for South Carolina before voting was even done, and Elizabeth Warren? I think only a fool would write her off.

Andrew McCabe, who oh-so-long ago was the Deputy Director of the FBI, got late-breaking good week notification. His lawyers were advised that McCabe won't be charged with anything after being left hanging for nearly two years. I'll let you decide whether this is an effort by AG Barr to demonstrate how independent he is, or if we'll see a review of this decision anytime soon. You know -- after Trump inevitably tweets about it.

In my neck of the woods, NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo went to Albany to try and get the administration to back off on plans to keep New Yorkers from participating in a few travel programs. We were stripped of that right ostensibly because of the Green Light Law which allows undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses and prevents the DMV from sharing info with immigration officials.

Now, there's a little issue of what might look like a quid pro quo here, which came in the form of a tweet from you-know-who.

I'm sure, as you are, there's no question that's a perfect tweet right there, but even if it's neither perfect nor a quid pro quo, our AG Tish James set the record straight.

And finally, I'll end with news that Mike Bolsinger, a relief pitcher for the Toronto Blue Jays, is suing the Houston Astros for damages and to have their $30M+ in bonuses donated to charities for kids and for retired major leaguers.

Bolsinger, an off-speed pitcher, had one disastrous inning in the 2017 playoffs and was released by the Blue Jays that night - never to pitch in the majors again. His lawyers say the Astros knew every single pitch in the inning, in which he walked three batters, gave up four earned runs, and got one batter out. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles, home of the Dodgers, who eventually lost the World Series to the Astros. I'm putting Bolsinger squarely on the good week list.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 4/22/18

One classroom today, CNN's State of the Union, since I haven't spent a lot of time there lately -- and, mostly, because Presidential Counselor Kellyanne Conway was making an appearance.

First up? Guest host Dana Bash, sitting in for Jake Tapper, asked Conway about the president's tweet disagreeing with a report in the NY Times that Cohen would 'flip' against his boss, and why he'd be concerned about it if he (Trump) had done nothing wrong. Conway suggested that the one tweet Bash mentioned was part of a continuum.

You have to look at everything the president said... he is defending someone who he has worked with and known for a dozen-plus years, Dana, who he things is being treated unfairly.... Also the methods really have disserved the president... 

Conway concluded that section by hitting the FBI about the DNC Server, after which Bash tried again to get her to say whether the president "has anything to hide" and if he "unequivocally" did nothing wrong that he had to worry about Cohen flipping. Conway wasn't having it.

I'm telling you that the president's concern has been for Michael Cohen and the way he has been treated... He stands up for people in his inner circle and people he knows when he thinks they are being treated unfairly... .

I sort of hoped that Bash would ask about Trump's loyalties to his own appointees, including Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, but that might have been a little out there since Conway was on a mission.  The mission? To slam "that guy," James Comey.

He can't even keep his story straight when he's out there among what he thinks is going to be hero's welcome with the mainstream media. And fortunately, many people including your own Jake Tapper, pushed back on him, really filleted him last week...

She was all over Comey, and Andrew McCabe. And, Conway repeatedly and effectively, I think, attacked CNN, the compliment to Jake Tapper notwithstanding, for their attention to tweets instead of to what Trump is focused on. But by far the best part of the interview came when Bash tried to ask about Conway's husband, who has receiving some attention for his own tweets, which are not always kind to the president.

In a nutshell, Bash wanted to know about Conway's husband's negative tweets about Trump and the Administration. The conversation got heated, and there was a lot of crosstalk but here's how things played out..

KC: He writes about a lot of things that are also supportive, and he writes a lot of things about corgis and the Philadelphia Eagles and sports too... But the fact is that -- well, two things I will say to you. Number one, that again, that woman who lost the election whose name I never see on TV anymore is wrong that women -- I think she said white women have to listen to their - the men in their life to -- to form their own political opinions. Wrong again, lady. Number two, it's fascinating to me that CNN would go there, But it's very good for the whole world to have just witnessed that it's now fair... 

Excuse me -- that it's now fair game what people's - how people's spouses and significant others may differ with them. I'm really surprised, but very, in some ways, relieved and gratified to see that. 

DB: And it's not about that (gender). It's about -- It's about -- It's about questioning, publicly questioning what you are doing for a living and with regard to your boss. And it has nothing to do with gender

KC: No, and it has nothing to do with my spouse?  You just brought him - you just brought him into this, so this ought to be fun moving forward, Dana.  We're now going to talk about other people's  -- people's spouses and significant others, just because they either work in the White House or at CNN? Are we going to do that? Because you just -- no, you just went there... CNN just went there. Look, differences of opinions...

DB:By the way, this wasn't critical. I'm just asking about...

KC: Oh, of course it was. It was meant to harass and embarrass. But let me just tell you something... Let me just tell you something. By definition, spouses have a difference of opinion when adultery is happening... By definition, spouses have a difference of opinion when one is, I don't know, draining the joint bank account to support things that maybe the other disagrees with. So this is a fascinating 'cross the Rubicon' moment. And I will leave it at that. 

And of course, they didn't just leave it there. It kept going. Bash was relentless in trying to defend the question, saying it was "actually intended to be somewhat lighthearted about the fact that we are all grownups who have different opinions.

DB: Kellyanne, Kellyanne, here was my whole point in this... is that you are a professional working for the president of the United States and your husband is a very well-respected lawyer. Any my point is that we don't often see - in fact I don't remember the last time we saw somebody working for the president in a high-profile position when their spouse is saying critical things about them. That is all... That is all.

Conway mentioned other people's family members who don't support the president privately and publicly, who worked for or gave money to Dems, but that the whole conversation

is meant to divert attention from, again, the big issues that America cares about. But, like I said CNN chose to go there. I think that's going to be fascinating moving forward... 

Bash reminded Conway about Trump, and Andrew McCabe.

DB: The president went after Andrew McCabe for something that his wife did, ran as a Democrat. And that had nothing to do with the president, so.

KC:  No, no, no, no. The president knew something early that everybody else is now finding out. The president has excellent instincts. And he knew Jim Comey and Andrew Mccabe...

And there: we have circled back around to the Kellyanne Conway we're so familiar with. In a nutshell, the credibility she gained by attacking CNN for being more interested in trivial stuff than in actual stuff -- something all of the networks were guilty of during Trump's campaign, and since --  was lost.

See you around campus.

Twisted Trumpian Logic

So, I know it's only Tuesday and usually I save the head-scratching for Wednesday, but I've gotta tell you, I'm so confused trying to stick with the president's logic.

You know, logic that says when things are going well, we need tens of billions of dollars but when things are going well, we don't need to do anything at all. Or something - like the two scenarios below.

We have seen significant change at our southern border since Trump was elected. In 2017, arrests for illegal crossings were at a 46-year low, and arrests away from the border are up by 25%. Fewer people are trying to come across illegally, we're told, because they fear they'll be apprehended. And arrests of non-criminal aliens - those whose illegal status is the their only crime - have risen 42% and arrests of MS13 gang members are up 82%. Sounds pretty good, right? And the president, fairly, takes credit for this.

And then there's Russia. The president decided yesterday that there was no need to increase sanctions because things were already going OK, and the law authorizing the sanctions was deterrent enough. Never mind that the bill authorizing the sanctions was passed with only five nays combined in the House and Senate; and pay no attention to the purposefully misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation, which was to punish Russia for interfering in our election. And further never mind CIA head Mike Pompeo counting on additional Russian interference in future elections.

I haven't seen a significant decrease in their activity. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that, but I'm confident that America will be able to have a free and fair election, and that we will push back in a way that is sufficiently robust that the impact they have on our election won't be great.

So, let's recap: the actual deterrent being seen on immigration demands a $25,000,000,000 solution, but actual interference by Russia does not warrant any penalty? One of those things is not like the other. And the president's logic is a load of hooey.

Or, here's another one -- the whole biased/unbiased, conflict/no conflict, ethics/no ethics thing going on with a particular FBI guy.

You know Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI who was pushed out yesterday, after facing the wrath of Trump for months, including, we're told, the president telling McCabe to ask his wife what it felt like to be a loser?  Yeah, seems his wife lost an election in Virginia, even after receiving a boatload of money from a super PAC run by then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Now, you and I might focus on the fact that boatloads of money are available to support a candidate for statewide office, or any office for that matter. But not Trump: he focused on the fact that McAuliffe, in addition to being a former Syracusan, is an FOB - friend of Bill (Clinton) and, of course, an FOH - friend of Hillary, too.

So, you see, it's impossible - IMPOSSIBLE - for McCabe to be impartial in his job, because of  Comey emails Hillary his wife.  It's an automatic disqualifier, don't you see - a bona fide conflict of interest, plain as the orange hair on Trump's head!

As are these many conflicts of interest or ethical challenges, which go unnoticed - or worse, denied - by the Trumpeters, their legal teams, and the current Office of Government Ethics:

• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by paying higher than market rate rent in Trump Tower 
• taxpayers enriching the president's coffers by Trump properties renting golf carts to the Secret Service for when he's very busy working
• private citizens buying access to and enriching the president's coffers through their membership at Mar-a-Lago, including photo ops with the guy who carries the nuclear football, and pictures of the government in action the public dining room
• citizens and companies (both foreign and domestic), foreign government representatives, and lobbyists enriching the president's coffers and currying favor by staying at his Washington DC hotel, or playing golf at his properties
• Kellyanne Conway promoting Ivanka Trump's clothing line on national TV
• the president promoting "his" winery in Charlottesville VA
• then candidate Trump paying $25K to Florida's Attorney General, at the same time she was contemplating joining a multi-state legal action against him
• Trump using his foundation to pay legal bills, use other people's money to make donations for which he took credit, and more

I could go on (and on and on) with these. And yes, it goes without saying that Democrats aren't immune to the influence of money -- you'll never get an argument from me on that. However, this is about specific situations, many of which are unique to the man currently occupying the Oval Office. 

The absurdity of this president pretending that he and his family, Cabinet members, advisers, and the like are pure as the driven snow, while suggesting that a career FBI guy is compromised because his wife ran for office?

That's a way more bigly bigger load of hooey.