Wondering on Wednesday (v214)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Ah, Wednesday...  Let the wondering begin...

Will we ever meet the 'adults in the room', do you think? I mean, other than at a book signing? These mysterious people who share secrets, treasonous secrets unless they're a hoax, in which case, l guess, they're sharing lies. Except that we (ususususus, as they say on social media) shared this information with our allies, so why would we do what if it were just a hoax? Are we in some kind of celebrity game show or something? (Don't answer that.)

Is there actually someone working in the Intelligence Community named Unnamed Source, Official Briefed on the Matter, Intelligent Official, I Speak on Condition of Anonymity, Official Familiar with Intelligence, or I Am Not Authorized to Speak on Behalf of the Government? (That's got to be quite the thing on an ID badge, don't you think? Would they just use an acronym, I wonder? IANASBG, which I think would be pronounced Ian Asbag?)

And is the Intelligence Community one of those fancy gated places, like the one where lawyers brandish guns at protesters, I wonder? Or is it more like those giant retirement communities like The Villages? It sort of seems more like the latter, but I'm not really sure.

Speaking about The Villages, I learned today that if you tweet a video filled with f-bombs and senior citizens behaving badly, including repeatedly yelling "white power" and then delete it after causing a 'five-alarm fire" at the White House, you have "condemned" white power ideology, without even saying a word? It's true --Kellyanne Conway said so.

I'm at the point where I really want all of these people to arrive at the NY Times and do an Ellsberg and get all of this out in the open, before the election, so that the president will not be allowed to suck all of the air out of the room with his lies and spin and claims of hoaxing and of being the LONE WARRIOR.

I wonder, does he have a cape or something? Maybe one of those green coats like Melania wore, with writing on the back?  Would his say, "I really don't have a clue, do u?"

This latest Russia thing, another in a line of Russia things, is deeply upsetting, on a number of levels; first, let's assume it's a hoax, as the president says, (even though I'm surprised there would have been briefings for our allies on a hoax - is that just me, I wonder?)

If it's a hoax, that means there are people in the Intelligence Community actively trying to take down the Administration, and/or to interfere in the upcoming election, and/or trying to inflame our relationship with Russia and/or our allies,  or they're just a bunch of lying liars who have no ulterior motives, which might be more frightening, I'm not sure.

And of course the media has to be complicit, as are some Republicans (including my Congressman) and most Democrats, who want answers, very quickly on what's going on here. And how hard would it be for the president to convince people this is the case, I wonder?

But let's assume it's real, even if not fully fleshed out over the past many months, and think about why the president wouldn't take this seriously? Or think about why, if he knew this intelligence was out there, why would he be talking about inviting Putin to attend the G7 summit, being held on American soil, against the wishes of our allies? And why the intelligence folks wouldn't have briefed the gang of eight on this months ago, know as we all do, how Trump plays loosey-goosey with all things Russia?

Any does anyone else know why this administration insists on briefing Republicans and Democrats separately? What's up with that? Why aren't they getting the same information at the same time? Is that really necessary on a hoax or an actual threat to our servicemen and women?

Does any of this make you wonder as much as it makes me wonder, I wonder?

Wondering on Wednesday(v213)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Fair warning, this'll likely be all over the map - it'll be a miracle if anything flows with what came before or comes after it, just saying. So, where do we start?  

Lots of people have been posting a meme suggesting that if we just turned off the media for 30 days, the world would be a better place. I disagree, on principle, but I do have to wonder, how on earth is the Jerry Springer show still on television?  I was channel-surfing yesterday in our unairconditioned house, trying to find something soothing to nudge me into nap-land, and stumbled upon an episode that was, um, well, the weirdest marriage proposal in the history of television, I'm sure. All I can tell you is, there were three women, a stripper pole, a kiddie pool, wrestling, some wardrobe malfunction pixelating, and the obligatory chanting, of course. So, getting back to the meme: yes, let's see if taking Springer off the air would help what ails our society. 

What else is going on? Oh -- let's talk about NASCAR and the noose investigation. Someone, NOT Bubba Wallace, found what they took to be a noose hanging in the garage stall assigned to Wallace, NASCAR's only black full-time driver. Now, in case you're wondering, yes, there WERE immediate comments about Wallace being "just another Jussie Smollett" and pictures of Wallace with Smollett's face superimposed on them, and lots of delightful comments from people -- all of that is to be expected.  At the conclusion of the investigation, NASCAR issued a statement. 

The FBI has completed its investigation at Talladega Superspeedway and determined that Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime. The FBI report concludes, and photographic evidence confirms, that the garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose had been positioned there since as early as last fall. This was obviously well before the 43 team’s arrival and garage assignment. We appreciate the FBI’s quick and thorough investigation and are thankful to learn that this was not an intentional, racist act against Bubba. We remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all who love racing.

And so, what's the wondering? Well, I'm wondering whether we should hold any of the "just another Jussie Smollett" crowd accountable for their comments, and ask them for an apology?  And then, I realized, if I were going to do that, I'd be at it for a really long time... and my chances of success are about as low as that bar people set for the president.

Hey, maybe I can get this post flowing after all... Speaking of the president, how about that "slow down testing - he's only kidding - he's picking on the media who won't report on how much testing we're doing- I don't kid" stuff? I mean, who the heck should we listen to here, I wonder? And another thing I wonder, how much would you have to be paid to get up, go to work, defend your boss's insane comment, and then have him basically say that you are the liar when he doubles down on what he said in the first place?  Honestly, I can't think of a number that I'd accept for doing that.

But someone has a number in mind, I guess - and it must be being met, right? I mean, Kellyanne Conway is still there, working for Trump. Back in March, someone told her that "White House staffers" have referred to the coronavirus as the "Kung flu" which she said was highly offensive and wrong, and she (rightfully, in my opinion) asked for the names of the staffers involved.  Fast forward to June, and now instead of saying it's highly offensive, it's just the president's way of saying that the virus originated in China. What compels people to do this, to put themselves through this, I wonder?

Oh -- one more thing on testing, before we go. Seems that the Trump administration is planning on ending support for community testing sites in Texas and other states. According to the linked article from TPM, there was an effort back in April to end the support for the sites, but "after a public outcry" support was extended until the end of this month. And out of the original 41 sites, there are now only 13, including seven in Texas, one of the hardest hit states right now.  

Both of the Lone Star State's senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, are asking for the support to be continued. Here's what Cornyn said.

It’s pretty clear to me, and I think it’s clear to all of us, that with the uptick of cases, now is not a time to retreat from our vigilance in testing. I believe that they need to extend that federal support in Texas, at least until we get this most recent uptick in cases addressed.

And I have to wonder, how does Cornyn not know that if we just stop testing, we'll stop seeing an uptick in cases?

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School Extra Credit: 11/3/19

In yesterday's Sunday School post, we spent time with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang, consistent with my promise to pay attention to the Democratic presidential candidates when they're making the rounds.

In addition to the candidates, a few key Republicans were also making appearances in the classrooms - House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan; Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway on CNN's State of the Union with Dana Bash. Let's tackle them in order.

Brennan asked about strategy in light of the "damaging detail" that's expected to be shown in testimony likely to be released this week, and she asked who the Rs would like to see testify. There were lots of words, there was lots of interruption, but here's the gist of it. He wants to call Adam Schiff. Brennan seemed a bit incredulous, but McCarthy stuck to his guns.

Yes, I would. Because he is the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr, Ken Starr testified. How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did he talk to the whistleblower about? Because when the whistleblower even went to the inspector general he never mentioned that he went with Adam Schiff.

Remember what we're talking about today Margaret, the removal of the president of the United States. This should not be taken lightly. We should have all the facts. The public deserves the facts not something that's leaked. We're three weeks since the very first hearing inside there, the deposition. We still do not have the transcripts. You have members of Congress who just voted to justify what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on.

Brennan did not remind him that we have members of Congress who just voted against what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on, and that the vote that was passed allows all of them to see what's gone on. And, of course, that Republican members of Congress are in the room listening to or participating in the depositions and it defies credulity that the Rs don't know exactly what's been said in those traditionally secret depositions.

Brennan also pointed out that the whistleblower's attorneys have offered to have their client answer written questions, under penalty of perjury, directly to Republicans on the Intelligence Committee without going through the Democrats. McCarthy's response?

Well, Margaret, I have never received that offer and I'm the lead Republican in the House.

When Brennan told him the offer was submitted to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, McCarthy's answer was priceless.

Well, when was it submitted to him? because Devin had not told me about that prior to today.

Brennan said it was submitted Saturday night (not reiterating that was when McCarthy was in New York City attending a UFC event with the president). 

Well, Devin's in California, so let's see how they submitted. 

Right -- he was in California, the same state you represent -- and you were gallivanting around in NYC with the president, the subject of an impeachment that will come to you for a vote. Good to know.  

McCarthy pretended that the 'transcript' of the call is more information than the whistleblower has - which is almost certainly untrue, unless McCarthy has seen the actual transcript, which is on the secure server because it was so frightening? Potentially damaging? Embarrassing?

In the end, McCarthy stood firm on the demand, instigated and pressed by the president, that the whistleblower must come forward in person and show their ever loving whistleblowing face. 

I think democracy is too precious to think that somebody who's not on a phone call, that cannot stand before the American public, and answer the questions, that somehow we would change the course of that? And we're one year away from today. What are they so afraid of? What do they have to hide? Why wouldn't they release one item? 

Apparently, focusing on the whistleblower, instead of on the first-hand testimony provided by people who were on the call is all the strategy Brennan was able to get.

Scalise also toed the party line.

It’s all about reversing the results of the 2016 election. There are no high crimes or misdemeanors.

Stephanopoulos played a video clip of Deputy SecState John Sullivan indicating that "soliciting investigations into a political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values" and asked if Scalise agreed with that statement. He said that wasn't what happened on the call, and there was some back and forth about that, whether it was Crowdstrike or Burisma or Biden. George asked again, "it's just a very simple question, do you think it's appropriate for the president to ask the Ukrainians or the Chinese, which he's also done in public, to investigate his domestic political opponents?"

Well, first of all on that call he was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents, he was talking about corruption relating to the 2016 elections.

We know that is not correct, because the summary of the call clearly mentions the Bidens. It's right there, on page 4.

So, again, we're supposed to believe what the Republicans call a transcript, except when it doesn't support their position.  Got it.  

Scalise also said he wanted the whistleblower to testify, because

There are many reports out there that the whistleblower actually worked for Joe Biden. That concerns a lot of people. There are also a lot of reports that Adam Schiff and his staff coached the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower report being released.

Ignore, we're basically being told, that the Intelligence Community Inspector General indicated that whatever prior relationship there was did not discount what he reported, and that what was reported presented an urgent risk.

Scalise also repeated the lie that Nixon and Clinton depositions were public. His comments only reinforce how afraid the Republicans are here.

Dare I move on to Conway? Sure, what the heck. Dana Bash announced the state of our union to be "in fighting mode." And right off the bat, we have Conway calling the summary memo of the phone call "the transcript" and right off the bat, I know we're going to have fun with this.

In the interest of time, I'm just going to highlight some of Conway's comments. These are in order, and are in response to different questions Bash asked.

We don't need Ukraine's help to beat Joe Biden, anymore than we needed help to help beat Hillary Clinton.

 Who needs Ukraine's help to beat Joe Biden?

I feel comfortable saying that he never mentioned 2020, quid pro quo, holding up aid, Joe Biden, his political rival.

And but for President Trump, there would be no kind of aid going to Ukraine right now. Under President Obama, he was like the MyPillow guy for Ukraine. He was sending pillows and blankets.

There's no evidence that Donald Trump did anything wrong. 

Why are we about to have public hearings trying to impeach a president rather than voting on the USMCA, reducing drug prices, improving health care for the 28 million...

No no no but you are saying poor Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did nothing wrong. But what did Donald Trump do wrong? 

They have the aid. They're using the aid. 

And they get to the process a bit.

I think - I think if you're going to do, respectfully, what Adam Schiff does, is just come out and cherry-pick the 10 seconds or 10 minutes of 10 hours worth of testimony the - the - we have no access to the full testimony because everything's been done in the dark in secret.

We cannot unscramble the egg, put the toothpaste back in the tube now...

And, back to substance, with this specific question: "Was - was there a time when military aid was held up because the president wanted Ukraine to look into the Bidens?"

I don't know. But I know they've got their aid... Here's what's absolutely, unimpeachably true. Ukraine has that aid. They have more aid than they had under the previous administration.

They are using the aid. The Ukrainian president said he had no idea aid was being held up. He felt no such pressure.  

On and on and on it went, almost like an "I know you are, but what am I?"  Conway herself frequently cherry-picked parts of what has been released that is allegedly helpful to the president, such as the Sondland text that there was no quid pro quo, not mentioning testimony that Trump dictated that message to him and told him to send it.

And, she said

So we have to...make sure people get the full picture. And we've all been deprived. CNN, the White House, we've all been deprived and denied... 

Sh said that public hearings are "too late" and added

What I'm telling you is, Ukraine has the aid. And if we're going to impeach a president over ...different people's - quote - "interpretations" who the last time I checked weren't elected to be the president of the United States and the commander in chief...

Nobody ever thought we'd release the transcript. Ladies and gentlemen, you can all see it. Go read it. Everybody has access to it. What we don't have access to, Dana, is what happened over the last five or six (weeks) (in)...secret.

...Because nothing in this conversation so far resonates to the country, especially in the 17 swing states, that would lead to a high crime or misdemeanor.  

Why don't they admit what this is all about? Stop pretending this is about Ukrainian aid, this is about red hats, red ties and rednecks.

I'm going to stop there, even though there was more, much more. 

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....

Wondering on Wednesday (v168)

Wednesday again, already?  Well, alrighty then, let's dive right in!


How does one do anything but wonder, I wonder, at why the sitting president of the United States is devoting so much of his time to lambasting a deceased war hero and public servant? I mean, who does that? There's attacking someone when they're down, but attacking someone when they're dead and buried, someone celebrated for both his public service and his patriotism, and a former POW to boot? What is wrong with someone who devotes that much time to something so petty?

And as I write this, a report came across my news feed that Trump spent five full minutes talking about McCain at an official White House event today celebrating manufacturing. There's something really wrong about that, no wondering needed.

In the same vein, how does someone who was the best friend of the deceased war hero, who by his own admission was nothing without his friend - how does Lindsey Graham sleep at night, or look in the mirror, or leave his house, given that he continues to prop up Trump at every turn, leaving his best friend behind on the battlefield? I honestly don't know how he lives with himself.

I wonder if  anyone else remembers when the American president would not meet with Israel's embattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter's campaign for re-election? Well, here we are again, with Netanyahu again facing a difficult election, and also facing indictment for bribery and other charges, but instead of the American president not interfering, the two men are going to spend a lot of time together.  I'm not sure that's a good thing, even if it is an ally - and I of course don't trust the president's motives - is this about America and Israel, or is it about Trump and his wooing of Jews away from the Democratic Party, I wonder.

What else is wonder-worthy tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday (v167)

Here we go again!

The president today decided to follow the path taken by many other countries and ground Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 airplanes after a second deadly crash killed everyone aboard, and after Canada declared that none of the planes would be allowed to land in or fly out of Canadian airspace based on new information.

Trump's statement noted

The safety of the American people, all people, is our paramount concern. Any plane currently in the air will go to its destination and thereafter be grounded until further notice. Planes that are in the air will be grounded upon landing at their destination, Pilots will be notified. Airlines have been notified and have agreed with us. 

This comes on the heels of a couple of tweets he sent yesterday which suggested that technology was making a mess of things.

Pilots are no longer needed? Who are those people in the cockpit, I wonder, and what are they doing?

"Older and simpler far are better," he said? I wonder if he's thinking about presidents, maybe? Or how that fits in with his big push for STEM and Space Force and all that? And border protection - what about that technology? Older and simpler would have us visually inspecting every truck crossing the border, grinding crossings (and the economy) to a complete halt.

How, I wonder, can he request $750 billion for the military,

...not funding for endless wars, this is for research and development and procurement to fund the most awe-inspiring military the world has ever known.

I just wonder about him, I do.

Seeking Unity in the State of the Union

News has it that the president is seeking to give us a message of unity in tonight's SOTU, which will be coming your way at 9PM eastern time.

He's tried giving us that message before - think Charlottesville, for example - with limited success. Usually that's because he's not able to restrain himself - and his handlers are not able to restrain him - from tweeting nastiness, lies, or self-defeating misinformation within hours of giving a speech. He's hampered by that whole, "I'm talking to you, not to myself" trap that ensnares so many people in public life, but maybe tonight will be different.

For example, we're told in this report recapping an appearance by Kellyanne Conway on Fox and Friends, that the president will focus not only on unity, but on an "end to retribution and  resistance politics"- but Conway was not optimistic that his "rivals.. will respond well." And, she said,

It's a very uplifting address to celebrate milestones of American greatness, including those that have anniversaries coming up in 2019... When he is calling for unity and he is talking about actual portraits of Americans who have achieved greatness on behalf of all of us, including our brave men and women in uniform... (if there is) anybody sitting there with their arms folded, looking like they're sucking lemons, he is calling for unity and working together. They will need to decide if they're serious about that as well. 

She also added that the president wants the legislature to "do its job" including "meaningful immigration reform" with a physical barrier that "you can't crawl under, climb over, drive through or walk around."

(As an aside, I noticed that the president's advisor didn't mention the pole vaulting option; she might want to look at that, now that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker again.)

Finally, Conway noted, he'll tout his many accomplishments, which bad people deny, and he'll address late-term abortion, a topic that will delight his base and antagonize people who believe that the government doesn't need to be between the patient and her doctor. You'll recall that was a huge rallying cry for the Republicans on why the Affordable Care Act was a horrid idea for the country.

Go figure.

Sunday School 9/9/18

We had an interesting situation today: two key administration officials, vice-president Mike Pence and counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway appeared in two classrooms, so those are the only sessions I'll be looking at today.

Pence appeared via pre-recorded interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation. Conway visited with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union, and with Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press; let's start with highlights from her conversations.

• On the credibility of the author of the NY Times op-ed, Conway's consistent message was that there was credibility granted automatically because the message was anti-Trump. Tapper noted that he gave the op-ed more credibility once members of the administration tripped all over themselves to let everyone know they were not the author.
• On what would happen if the author's identify was known: all of the news shows would clear their slates, clear their tables, and put the person on the air immediately
• On the possibility of the DOJ investigating to identify the author for 'national security', as Trump suggested, that all stems from not knowing who the person is or what information they have access to, so it could be national security but we don't know. Tapper suggested investigating someone who did nothing wrong by penning an op-ed to see if they did something wrong separately was wrong, but Conway didn't seem to care. 
• On whether she stalled/stopped Bob Woodward from talking to Trump, she denied that was the case. On both shows, she said she 'brought the request back' but not directly to the president, and the request was denied. She could have taken it to Trump, but doesn't say who she did take it to.
• A few of her notable quotables (because she always leaves a few pearls on the floor whenever she goes on the shows: "the line between arrogance and ignorance' and 'motivated by conceit and deceit' and 'the four corners of an op-ed or the four corners of a book.' 

Pence was his usual self - stern, presidential (oops --sorry, vice presidential) when talking to Chris Wallace. For example, on President Obama coming front and center on the campaign trail:

Well, it was very disappointing to see President Obama break with the tradition of former Presidents and become so political and roll out the same tired arguments that he and liberals have made over the last 8 years. The truth is the American people in 2016 rejected the policy and direction of Barack Obama when they elected president Donald Trump...

He suggested to Brennan that Trump is the cat's meow of presidents. Seriously:

I mean the truth is I think president Donald Trump is the most accomplished president of my lifetime and I think already one of the most successful presidents in American history - in our first two years. 

With both Wallace and Brennan, he defended the president chastising AG Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III for the Justice Department's investigations into two apparent crooks in the House.  First, the exchange with Wallace.

CW: The president tweeted, "Two very popular Republican congressmen were brought to a well-publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff." The president is saying, play politics. Protect members of Congress even if they have committed acts of corruption before the election.

MP: No, I don't think that's what the president was saying at all. Look, the DOJ, as you know, has long-standing guidelines...that say whenever possible the Justice Department should avoid taking any actions that may impact an election. Now the president was referring to that and the difficulty - 

CW: These are two people, one supposedly committing insider trading and the other one who was living high off campaign funds. Are you saying they should be protected because we are close to the midterms?

MP:  They are all very serious allegations and they ought to be pursued but I think the president was referring to the long-standing tradition in the Justice Department to avoid unnecessarily impacting election outcomes and perhaps preventing other men and women from stepping forward and filling those slots in the future.

Which, of course, men and women can do when it's time to fill the seats of these two crooks, but I digress.  Brennan, getting a similar response on the DOJ not 'unnecessarily' impacting elections, took a slightly different tack:

MB: So Jeff Sessions, you agree, was correct in his actions?

MP: What I want to say, Margaret, is what the American people appreciate is this president says what he thinks. He lets people know what he feels about things, but and - and - and really in a very real sense, what you see is what you get with president Donald Trump. And I think that's the reason why he's made the connection that he's made with people all across this country because -

MB:  But - but with something like that --

MP: Washington DC - while Washington DC focuses on -

MB: - when it has to do with a legal matter 0

MP:  - these various controversies - 

MB:  - people argue that that's dangerous - 

MP:  - he's focused on their interests.

MB: That may be  - that may be what he thinks, but there's a danger to saying things like that because it suggests that the rule of law should be subjugated to politics.

MP: No -  this is a president who has strongly affirmed our commitment to the rule of law and to the, to our justice system.

Um, sure. We strongly believe in justice and the rule of law except when it messes with out ability to hold a majority in Congress -- got it.

With Wallace, he talked about Syria, and mentioned chemical weapons several times, even as Wallace tried to steer him away from that very specific act of war. 

CW: Let's say it's not chemical weapons, let's say it's barrel bombs, let's say it's conventional weapons, are we going to let hundreds of thousands of people die there, sir?

And then

CW:  But, sir, dead is dead. I understand - I take your point about the chemical weapons.

Pence, for his part, talked about chemical weapons - twice - when he finally answered the question that was specifically asking about not chemical weapons.

MP: I want to make it very, very clear. There's a wider world watching, is that the United States of America and our allies will take swift and decisive action against any use of chemical weapons in Idlib province. Beyond that I will tell you that we are watching very carefully as resources are being marshaled along the border of the Idlib province. 

And I'm confident there will be a decision by the president of the United States, but I'm confident that we will be monitoring that very, very carefully to ensure that we don't see another humanitarian catastrophe like we did before.

Like I said, Pence was doing his darnedest to sound presidential, just in case there's anything to that book and that op-ed...

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/12/18

I visited two classrooms today, CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper in the host's seat, and ABC's This Week without George Stephanopoulos; Jonathan Karl sat in today.

Tapper's guests included former Virginia Governor (and hometown Syracuse guy) Terry McAuliffe, and the president's attorney Rudy Giuliani, which is where we'll start.

Among other things, Tapper asked Giuliani about a comment he made on another network about the president asking James Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn. Giuliani denied ever saying that. Except when Tapper rolled the tape of that conversation, he admitted he did say it. Confused yet? If not, this explanation will help  with that.

Yes, I said it. But I also said before it that I'm talking about their version of it.

Look, lawyers argue in the alternative. I know it's complicated, by my goodness, you have been over this long enough that - I mean, why would I say something that - that isn't  true? I mean, that - the president didn't say to him go easy on Flynn or anything about Flynn. He's (Comey) saying that. I am talking about their alternative. I'm saying the conversation never took place, but if it did take place -- and here's the conversation that's alleged - it is not illegal to have said that.  That's what I'm saying. We call it arguing in the alternative. 

Graciously, Tapper didn't laugh out loud. And doesn't that sound like another recent Giuliani comment, that collusion didn't happen, but even if it did, it's not illegal? That's some 'alternative' world he's lawyering in, I dare say.

McAuliffe talked about Charlottesville, and about his record as governor, and about Democrats and the upcoming elections. He noted the Dems should not be talking about 2020 but should be focusing on getting some checks and balances on Trump by winning seats (or control) of the House and Senate, and should also focus on getting more Dems elected as governors (they're down some 18 statehouses to the Republicans). Specifically about 2020, he said he hopes everybody runs - and I do too, frankly. Let's step away from the coronation and have a good ole shootout the way the Rs do.

Moving down the hall, here are two pieces of Jonathan Karl's interview with Kellyanne Conway.  The first is in response to Karl's question about whether she believed Trump's claim that there would be a 'red wave' in November and that the Rs would actually pick up House seats. After suggesting that it's possible and dropping some of her patented lines (Trump makes history, he doesn't repeat it; he makes his own trend, he doesn't follow them; people predicted doom and we've got economic boom, and so on), she raised one very valid point:

Here's what - here's the problem I see for the Democrats.  It's who's in charge of their party? Is it Tom Perez, who they don't respect? Is it, is it the 28 year old socialist? Is it the 70-something-year-old socialist? It is Elizabeth Warren who says that all law enforcement is racist from front to back and forward and backward? Is it - is it Hillary Clinton who still can't get over her loss in 2016? Who is the leader of the party? And what is their message, exactly?

Karl then asked her if Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III would still be Attorney General at the end of the year.

Well, how in the world will I know the answer to that question?

Pressed on what she thought, because, Karl noted, the campaign manager says Session should be fired and Trump says he's MIA...

Excuse me? That's -- I'm not answering questions as to who will be in The White House at the end of the year. That's a crazy question. You just want to roll the tape sometime.

She did, however, point out that Sessions is doing a great job on law enforcement,  but

he has recused himself from this. And the president rightfully wants to -- wants America to see that this Mueller investigation comes to a conclusion in a timely fashion. So far no Russia collusion proven. And you know it. You know I was the campaign manager for the winning part of the campaign. I never talked to anybody in Russia. I talked to people in Macomb County Michigan and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Not Moscow...  You know there's no collusion. Paul Manafort's on trial, has nothing to do with the campaign, Russia, collusion, the judge warned everybody not even to say those words. 

I love her mentioning she ran the 'winning part' of the campaign -- she's used that line before - but who ran the 'losing part' - was that Manafort, or Lewandowski?

Finally - and yes, I absolutely saved the best for last -- here's what table chat guest Ana Navarro had to say when Karl suggested turning to what Omarosa is saying:

Oh God, why??

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/5/18

I dropped in on three classrooms this morning - Fox News Sunday, to hear what president Trump's national security advisor John Bolton and Florida Senator Marco Rubio had to say; Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan talking to Kellyanne Conway, and NBC's Meet the Press with Senators Amy Klobuchar and Roy Blunt talking with Chuck Todd.

There was lots of talk on most of the shows about the president's 'enemy of the people' comments, about Russia  and North Korea, and about the upcoming elections. Here are a few highlights from each of the conversations.

First, John Bolton:

• "Unequivocally" we had nothing to do with the alleged assassination attempt on Venezuela's President Maduro. It might have been something he orchestrated himself, or maybe it was something else.
• Trump talking about the Russian hoax means "the idea that somehow the Russians directed and controlled his campaign or direct and control his administration" or that there was some kind of conspiracy.
• Or, he means the hoax is "the idea that the Trump campaign was  beneficiary of a converted effort together with the Russians to affect the 2016 election."
• And when Trump mentions Russia and China and North Korea? "There's no question that Russia was the principal violator in 2016" and that they're the leading violator this year, but "It does not exclude the potential for others to meddle" and like Trump, I guess, we all need to be focused on the other guys, too.

Next, Marco Rubio:

• Trump thinks the Mueller investigation is just about collusion, but Rubio "believe(s) it's in the best interest of the United States of America and the American people for that investigation to run its course for all the truth to come out. I think that's the best thing that could happen for him, and I think it's the best thing that could happen for the country.
• Trump has to decide, with his lawyers, whether or not to sit down with Mueller.
• Kim Jung Un is "more than willing to tear apart facilities that are no longer necessary for old missiles because he's got newer ones that work better."

Kellyanne Conway:

• On Trump not directly echoing the sentiments of his entire national security team, "there continue to be active cyber security - cyber warfare campaigns, if you will, by North Korea, Iran, China, certainly Russia, and this president wants to make very clear that he was not the president in 2016 when evidence of Russian interference and meddling in our democracy in 2016 was presented to that president and his security team and buried because they wanted the other person to win and indeed thought she would win the presidency. This president is not burying it."
• When Trump says Russian hoax, "he means the investigation and some others on TV never under oath wanting to suggest that somehow Russian meddling in the 2016 election was successful in changing a single vote or indeed the electoral outcome."
• Or, "and when he talks about the hoax, he's talking about this fantasy, this unproven fantasy that somehow the campaign that I successfully managed for the successful part of the campaign was in cahoots with Russians."
• On the whole 'enemy of the people' stuff, she had a lot to say but the best was "I don't mention the journalists by name but I'm much more interested in the work of Alex Acosta, our labor secretary than Jim Acosta, because he's presiding over an economic boom. Doom was predicted, boom is what we have in our economy."

Roy Blunt:

• On election security: "I think the one areas where both the Congress and local officials and the federal government and local officials need to be working together is to be sure that whatever happens on election day, there is confidence that that's what really happened. 
• On whether there should be federal money every year for election security: "...I don't want this to become an annual entitlement. You know, the worst possible funding is distant money and local decision making on how to spend it" so he'd like there to be more guidance on what states and localities can do with the money.

Finally, Amy Klobuchar:

• On the statement by Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence, about "doing everything we can to have legitimate elections," she expressed concern "that you could have a hack that finally went through. You have 21 states that were hacked into. They didn't find out about it for a  year. And that's one of the reasons we want to pass our bill, so that there's now a requirement that they tell the individual Secretaries of State immediately so they can protect themselves.
• On a comment by Elizabeth Warren that the criminal justice system is racist: "For people who have been victimized and have been a victim of a crime, they need a criminal justice system that works for them... we know that there is racism in the system that needs to be fixed, that's why we have started instituting body cameras, which is a great solution, doing things on eyewitness ID, and I think the solutions are there for us. We just have to reform the system."

Lots to chew on there, if you're so inclined.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 6/17/18

Since it's Father's Day, I spent time in the classrooms where there was discussion on the issue of separating kids from their parents at the border. I managed to sit in on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and This Week, where we'll start with white nationalist and former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Jonathan Karl was in the host's chair today, and asked Bannon how, amidst all the criticism from both the left and the right, the separation policy can be justified.

I don't think you have to justify it. We have a crisis on the southern border. But the elites in this city - and this ties into Korea, ties into everything that took place this week - the elites, the permanent political class in this city want to manage situations to, you know, to bad outcomes.  And Donald Trump is not going to do that. He's just not going to kick the can down the road...

We ran on a policy, very simply, stop mass illegal immigration and limit legal immigration, get our sovereignty back, and to help our workers, OK? And so he went to a zero tolerance policy...

Bannon went on to make a completely misguided point about some other immigrants, completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

And by the way, I don't see the mainstream media, and I don't see the liberal left embracing the Angel Moms, those people that were permanently separate from their children because of illegal aliens that came over here and committed crimes and killed people. 

You know, the way the Republicans do. After attacking the pope, Catholics in general (he is one, he said) and saying that no way should DACA recipients ever get citizenship, he chiefly offered his immigration strategy.

I strongly recommend that we just wait until 2019, right, to address this, because I think we're going to have a big November... I would definitely shut down the government over the wall, absolutely... So yes, I would say on - in September, if they have not allocated money for the wall, let's shut down the government, and by the way on November 6, let the voters decide.

 Had enough?  Well, maybe not so fast.

Let's take a listen as Kellyanne Conway chats with Chuck Todd on MTP. Todd asked if the president was ready to pick up the phone and stop the separations,which Lindsey Graham said he could do.

The president is ready to get meaningful immigration reform across the board. And Chuck, let me tell just tell you, nobody likes seeing babies ripped from their mothers' arms, from their mother's wombs, frankly. But we have to make sure that DHS's laws are understood through the soundbite culture that we live in...

Like Bannon, she made an invalid connection, in her case to say that prior administrations have also struggled with this.

Secretary of DHS under President Obama told the New York Times this weekend that this was the bane of his existence for three years. He was describing the fact that they had to detain families in these large facilities for very long periods of time. Why? Because in the summer of 2014 we saw the surge, particularly from Central America, tens of thousands, if not more, unaccompanied minors coming to the border and trying to gain entry.

Which begs the question, if they were unaccompanied minors, from whose arms were they being ripped?  Anyway - she went on to echo the administration's argument, that we're treating these illegals the same way we treat citizens who are convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail (after arraignment, a bail hearing, a trial, a determination of guilt, and sentencing).  

And then she blamed the Democrats for not having ESP.

Chuck, I don't remember a single Democrat, I could be mistaken, maybe one murmured it, but in the one hour meeting back in January in the cabinet room where the president invited senators and congressmen from the Republican and Democratic parties to the cabinet room... Did the issue come up? The Democrats only want to talk about DACA, the Dreamers. Why weren't they talking about this?

To his credit Todd pointed out that the separation policy was issued in April, which on most calendars is after January.

What they should have said is, "Look, we had a surge over the border in 2014, Mr. president, under President Obama, and it shocked everyone, and we simply didn't have the capacity. We want to avoid that in the future and work with you." 

And, she added,

...if the Democrats are serious, and if a lot of Republicans are serious, they'll come together. The won't just talk about this week, 'the Dreamers,' or just 'the wall,' or just 'catch and release.' It's all of the above.

And insisting on that, of course, is what's been preventing comprehensive immigration reform for decades. 

Finally we hear from Maine's Republican Senator Susan Collins, whose interview was aired on CBS' Face the Nation. Her conversation with Margaret Brennan included her disagreement with the separation policy.

I do not (agree with it). Senator Jeff Flake and I have written tot he administration to ask for more information about the policy, but we already know two things. First, from the experience of previous administrations it does not act as a deterrent to use children in this fashion. And second, and much more important, it is inconsistent with our American values to separate these children from their parents unless there's evidence of abuse or another very good reason.

Collins is not a softy on immigration - not at all. She called out the administration for saying they would not separate children from their asylum-seeking parents, but that is what's happening. As she pointed out,

What the administration has decided to do is to separate children from their parents to try and send a message that if you cross the border with children, your children are going to be ripped away from you. That's traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims and it's contrary to our values in this country.

That's not to say we shouldn't act to try to curb illegal immigration. We should, and I support the president's proposals for border security. We do need to strengthen our security at the border. We need to work with those countries in Central American from which these families are coming to end the gang violence that is encouraging them to leave. And in some cases we need to repatriate the whole family back to the home country. 

But we know from years of experience that we need to fix our immigration laws and that using children is not the answer. 

We'll leave it there for this week. See you around campus. 

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.

Wondering on Wednesday (v112)

How's everyone doing tonight?  Anyone wondering about anything in particular?

Maybe you're wondering why the president would retweet a fake video, causing trouble with our closest ally?  Yeah, me too.

I wonder, where is General Kelly and why isn't he keeping the lid on the child that is the tweeter in chief? I thought he was supposed to be exerting control over this mess? He seems to have clipped Jared's wings pretty quickly.

Maybe you're wondering how a person who has been accused of sexual harassment by a dozen or so  women  and who was recorded talking about assaulting women, forcibly kissing them, groping them, would (again) manage to carve out a slice of higher ground from which to attack others facing similar accusations?  That's right -- the president used the abuse of women by men in power to attack NBC for 'fake news'. Here's just one of today's examples; the other promoted a (long-solved) 'mystery' that is clearly fake news.

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too.

And, by the way, have you seen the reports where Trump pretends the voice on the tape that he apologized for is not his? Here's how Access Hollywood responded:

We wanted to clear something up that has been reported across the media landscape (said Natalie Morales). Let us make this perfectly clear: the tape is very real. Remember, his excuse at the time was 'locker room talk'. He said every one of those words.

I swear, this man has some serious issues.

Maybe you're wondering about Angela Lansbury's comments on sexual harassment?  Here's what she said in an interview with the British company Radio Times.

There are two sides to this coin. We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us - and this is where we are today. 

We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it's awful to say we can't make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped.

Whoa.  I wondered about that one myself.

Men abuse women because the women try to make themselves attractive? Is that why priests abuse altar boys? Teachers abuse students? Doctors abuse patients? If that were the case, wouldn't the 'average' abuse victim be a Victoria's Secret model?

She continued (fortunately, I think.)

Should women be prepared for this? No, they shouldn't have to be! There's no excuse for that. And I think it will stop now -- it will have to. I think a lot of men must be very worried at this point.

I don't have to wonder about that last part - I think she's as right about that as she is about women "must sometimes take blame" for being harassed, assaulted or abused - in the workplace or any other place. The victim is not the person of power in harassment situations  - whether it's the priest, the teacher, the doctor -- and these situations about power, not physical attraction. 

And as to blame, my husband has said that a woman could be drop dead gorgeous, stark naked walking down the middle of the street, and that's STILL not a reason to sexually assault her.  I hope there's no wondering about that.

And finally, I'm wondering about a piece of fairly late breaking news.  Would it surprise you to learn that the Trump administration's new opioid czar is none other than Kellyanne Conway?

In 2016, 50,000 Americans lost their lives to the opioid epidemic, according to the federal government’s preliminary count. That’s more than the number of Americans killed in combat in Vietnam, or that died during the worst year of the AIDS crisis, or that die annually from car accidents or gun violence.

In response to this mass death, public-health advocates have implored the Trump administration to mount a more comprehensive effort to the opioid crisis. One of their proposals was for the president to appoint an opioid “czar” — an official with the time and expertise to coordinate the federal government’s response to the worst drug-overdose epidemic in American history.

The administration has decided to honor this request. In a gesture meant to convey just how seriously President Trump takes his responsibility to combat the opioid emergency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Wednesday the appointment of America’s first opioid czar — Kellyanne Conway.

Yep -- I have to say, I'm now speechlessly wondering.