Sunday School 1/21/24

I visited several classrooms yesterday, mostly to listen to the Republican side of things. 

First up?  Former 2024 presidential candidate and now Trump endorser Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) met with Martha Raddatz in the This Week classroom. 

Burgum ran as a 'unifying' candidate before pulling out of the race $12M poorer. Raddatz asked if he believes Trump has the best chance of pulling the country together. He didn't answer the question but said serving as governor was better under Trump than under Biden.

And as we know, during the time that President Trump was in office, I mean, we had peace and prosperity in America. And under President Biden, we’ve got chaos around the world...

He centered his candidate on the economy, energy policy, and national security and how they're interrelated, and says

Joe Biden is taking us in the wrong direction on all of those, 180 degrees the wrong direction, and -- and not -- I'm confident that President Trump is -- he’s going to be right on the economy, right on energy policy, and right on national security.

Raddatz asked why he supports election-denier Trump; Burgum's on record saying Biden won in 2020. After trying twice to get an answer, she simply asked if he was an election denier too. He says no.

We have to make sure that Americans have confidence in these elections... Americans lack confidence in this, and that’s why -- that’s why we’ve got to make sure going forward that we have confidence. Democracy doesn’t exist unless people can trust the outcome of an election.

Another non-answer came to a question about Trump 'birthering' Nikki Haley. In a nutshell? Everyone's mean, the Dems say bad things about each other, too, and "it's the norm" in our politics. He's wrong on that, I think, but he's not all that far from right, is he?

Down the hall in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-kansaw). 

In Arkansas, other than "to save the mother's life in a medical emergency," all abortions are banned.  Any attempts to modify the law have been blocked by the state's Attorney General. Brennan wondered if Sanders would consider a ballot initiative to modify the law.

Look, I'm proud of the fact that Arkansas is one of the most pro-life states in the country. I'm unapologetically pro-life. I believe that we are a culture that protects life, that values life. I think that's who we are as a country and I'll continue to support those measures.

Brennan acknowledged the personal belief but asked if Sanders had any interest in hearing what her constituents thought. No need for that; she said her state is "overwhelmingly" pro-life, she said, and she's proud of efforts they've made, including with adoption, foster care, education, and 

empowering every single Arkansan to have a great quality of life. We are looking at every aspect in making sure that we're doing what we can to protect and value life at every stage here in the state of Arkansas.

She didn't expand post-partum care from 60 days to twelve months; some of her GOP counterparts did. Brennan asked why not, given the state has long had a high maternal mortality rate. Sanders said she wants to "do everything we can" during pregnancy and after, and that they've made several changes already. Unlike some of her counterparts, Arkansas will be participating in a summer food assistance program the feds are offering. 

When asked about Trump and Biden both being too old to be part of a new generation of leaders, Sanders talked about the candidates' records, not their ages, and to no one's surprise, thinks Trump is the better choice. As to whether Trump can unite us, she said

You know, one of the things that I think is so often left out of Donald Trump's story is the patriotism and the love of country that he brought back. We haven't seen that in this president... In fact, we've seen the total opposite. 

Brennan disagreed with several things Sanders touted as Trump's successes, including immigration, the Middle East, and Ukraine, to which Sanders responded,

Well, that's why we need him to come back for four years because he didn't get to finish, but he certainly made significant progress...

If you're wondering, she's focused on being governor for "the next seven years," seemingly shutting out becoming Trump's veep.  

Last, a speed round with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), who was heckled by Kirsten Welker on  Meet the Press. 

Is New Hampshire "make or break" for Haley?

No. No. She doesn't have to win. I mean, look, nobody goes from single digits in December to "you absolutely have to win" in January. I think that's a media expectation that's being set out there...

Is he concerned about Trump's mental capability, based on recent comments? 

I mean, look, the point is you have two nearly 80-year-olds fighting this thing out. That's not what America wants...this is not Donald Trump, the disruptor of 2016. This guy has lost his fastball... We always want that next generation. Neither of these guys represent the next generation.

Should a president have Trump's version of immunity? 

Of course not... I don't care what political party you're from, whether you're an extreme conservative or a socialist liberal – everybody should be concerned with that type of mentality going into the White House.

How can he support Trump, if he's the nominee?

I think most Republicans are going to get behind the Republican nominee...  This is how bad Joe Biden is. Six months ago Trump couldn't beat Biden...So this is where we've come, where Joe Biden is so bad that even folks would get behind Donald Trump.

And his last point?

... the more that come out, the better chance we have of beating him at the ballot box. And that's the only way to do it. The voters decide who's going to be the nominee. Not the media, not Chris Sununu, not even Nikki Haley. It's the voters, and that's the best process.

Truer words, and whatnot.  See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 3/8/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Let's dive right into the wonderment, shall we? 

If you've followed me for a while, here or elsewhere on social media, you know I'm a frequent critic of media folks and publications. I don't pretend I can do their jobs better than they do; I just sometimes wish they did their jobs a little better. 

And that's how I felt reading this AP article about a "surreal Twitter exchange" between an employee and chief twit Elon Musk.

Haraldur Thorleifsson, who until recently was employed at Twitter, logged in to his computer last Sunday to do some work — only to find himself locked out, along with 200 others. 

After several days of not hearing from the company whether or not he had been fired, Thorleifsson decided that publicly engaging Musk might get him the information he was looking for. 

Eventually, he got his answer after a surreal Twitter exchange with Musk, who proceeded to quiz him about his work, question his disability and need for accommodations (Thorleifsson, who goes by “Halli,” has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair) and tweet that Thorleifsson has a “prominent, active Twitter account and is wealthy” and the “reason he confronted me in public was to get a big payout.” While the exchange was going on, Thorleifsson said he received an email that he was no longer employed.

There's more to the story, and the article covers it all. Here's what I'm wondering: why write an article about a Twitter exchange, surreal or otherwise, and not include a link to the tweets? 

News is out that Walmart is closing its last two Portland, OR stores.

The closures come after Walmart CEO Doug McMillion said in 2022 that record-breaking retail theft has hit the company’s economic performance and could lead to store closures. “Theft is an issue. It’s higher than what it has historically been,” McMillion said, adding that “prices will be higher and/or stores will close” if authorities don’t crack down on shoplifting crimes.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems kind of obvious to wonder whether the company considered hiring security guards instead of greeters and employing cashiers instead of leaving it up to customers to do the work.

NY's Gov. Kathy Hochul has put forward changes to our state's bail reform law. A key change? Getting rid of  "the so-called 'least restrictive' standard for judges when considering bail." 

It's going to be a battle with her own party; "Democratic leaders have called for ways to address underlying issues surrounding crime, such as poverty, housing, and mental health," while Hochul is looking to make the law itself fairer. 

It depends on the judge and the political leanings or the philosophical leanings, or the judicial leanings of a judge versus looking at commonsense, commonly accepted criteria.

I can't help wondering why so many Dems disagree with her. After all, they're among the first to complain when people 'judge shop' to find a friendly ear for redistricting or gun control cases. Surely, the Dems know that alleged criminals don't have that chance. 

There are probably a couple million folks talking about the spate of 'anti' bills introduced by Republican legislators around the country.

One, in Florida, would ban the use of pronouns "that do not correspond with [a] person’s sex." The guy who submitted the bill said it

would enshrine the “God-given” responsibility of parents to raise their children... The bill also protects students and teachers from being forced to use language that would violate their personal convictions.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I have to wonder why we need laws designed to disregard the God-given responsibility of parents who are respectfully raising their children, and to violate the personal convictions and identities of others. 

Tennessee is trying to out-Florida Florida. A bill passed this week would 

require paid drag performers to get a permit before they can take the stage, and would specifically prevent minors from attending their shows...

I didn't have to spend a lot of time wondering how soon drag performers would start acting for free just to be able to host a show without having to go through the permitting process? And it's fun to think about the 'small government, anti-regulation' folks having the tables turned on them, isn't it?

And speaking of protecting minors, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that America's Youngest Governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R- AR), just signed a bill "loosening child labor protections" in her state. 

Under the law, the Youth Hiring Act of 2023, children under 16 do not have to obtain permission from the Division of Labor to get a job. They will no longer need to get an employment certificate, which verified their age, described their work and work schedule, and included written consent from a parent or guardian. Sanders signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

Why was this bill necessary, you might be wondering? Because requiring a permit 

had placed an "arbitrary burden on parents" who needed government permission for their child to get a job. 

If you follow all of this kid-protecting stuff, coming from the same basic political idea gene pool, you're doing better than I want to do.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Email of the Week 9/17/20

Taking a slightly different approach this week, and featuring an actual piece of mail my brother-in-law received from none other than former Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Sanders, you'll recall, was no stranger to spilling falsehoods from the podium during her tenure as Trump's mouthpiece, and she's more than happy to volunteer to share people's thoughts with the president, if they would only respond to her survey and make a donation to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), of course. 

Here are some excerpts from her letter:

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Enclosed, please find your STOP FAKE NEWS petition, which is prepared specifically for your signature.

It is vital you return your STOP FAKE NEWS petition right away, because the DC/New York "reporters" are totally out of control;

X  The New York Times prints articles with quotes from unnamed "sources" all attacking president Trump.

X  MSNBC lets unhinged liars like Congressman Adam Schiff go on TV and smear the president with ridiculous falsehoods; and

X CNN has entire panels of "experts" who spend all night telling made up stories to the American people about presidential "wrongdoing" that simply does not exist. 

I for one, can't sit idly by any longer as the Democrats and their medial allies try to tear down our president, our Republican Party and our values with malicious smears and pervasive lies. Your name was forwarded to me as a strong pro-America patriot, so I am counting on you to join me. 

Trust me, I know that the best way to handle these people is to constantly call out their ridiculous lies, slander and abuse, which they constantly level at our Commander-in-Chief simply because they hate him and they want him out of office.

***So please sign and return your STOP FAKE NEWS petition, which I will show to president Trump as a sign that the American people have his back and do not believe the lies being spewed on TV, online, and in print every day by left-wing radicals in the media.***

The letter went on for another page, talking about how important it was for a donation to be included, and for the Rs to hold the Senate, and did I mention, for a donation to be included? 

Here's what my brother-in-law was supposed to have returned to Ms. Sanders:

I can assure you that his 'best contribution" is a whopping zero dollars - as mine would be, and as would the contributions of most people I know. 

I'm thinking I have to  subscribe to emails from the former Trump mouthpiece - it sounds like it might be fun. Until I on her mailing list, I'll be happy with just awarding Sanders the snail mail version of the coveted Email of the Week. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v209)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

It's a busy slate of wonderment tonight, so let's dive right in.

Apparently much of Twitter was wondering what inspired Senator Lindsey Graham (R-White House) to dye his hair blonde... a suspiciously Trumpian shade of blonde. Photos are included in the Raw Story article I've linked here, just so you know.

Most folks know that the president had a couple of tweets flagged with a 'fact-check' marker, which drove Trump nuts, and then had a racist, dog-whistling, violence-promoting tweet  tucked behind a 'click-to-view' button. And, I learned, there's a Twitter account,  @SuspendThePres, that was re-tweeting everything the president tweeted and that account was temporarily suspended, after less than three days of 'Trumping.' And the tweet that did them in? Yeah, that racist, dog-whistling, violence-promoting one.

Trump's original tweet is still up, albeit hidden behind a warning, and he remains active on Twitter. In contrast, SuspendThePres' account was suspended for posting the same statement, rendering them unable to tweet, retweet, follow other accounts, or like any posts.  

So - if you're wondering - the president, who is clamping down on social media companies like Twitter, violates social medial platform standards, but is not suspended. But if you or I tweet exactly the same thing as Trump, we will be suspended.

A lot of people have been wondering what happened to the coronavirus pandemic, since no one's talking about it anymore. It' been pushed off the front page by protests, but have no fear - it's still a 'thing' and it's still a risk. According to the Worldometers coronavirus info page, as of 8:32 PM my time (12:32 AM GMT), there have been 6,566,476 cases and 387,878 deaths worldwide. And yesterday, in the US, we added 20,578 new cases and 1,083 deaths.

And one more thing on that: the president repeatedly says we have done more tests than any other country, but he normally bases that the sheer number we've done, which of course does not allow for comparing us and other countries. And, in case you're wondering, there are many countries that are doing (or have done) more tests per million people than us, which is something that he doesn't like and chooses to ignore.  Among them? Russia. Spain. Denmark. United Arab Emirates. Ireland. The UK. Israel. Latvia. Estonia. Australia...

What else is going on?  Well, of course, we had the response from the DC Episcopal bishop, Mariann Edgar Budde ,to the presidents bizarre photo op at St. John's, and the DC Catholic Bishop, Wilton Gregory, for Trump's visit to the St. John Paul II National Shrine. Those were, shall we say, less than positive.

And maybe you were wondering, where are the president's supporters on this? Have no fear - there are a couple of folks willing to defend him. For example, one-time presidential candidate and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said that it was "Hard to imagine any other president walking out of the White House like" Trump did, with his entourage, police in riot gear, and protesters moved out of the way. And there was Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was even more effusive in her former boss's defense.  She said, in part,

The president, standing up in front of the country, holding a Bible, standing before a church, that's a sign of courageous leadership. And that's the type of leadership that we need. 

Meanwhile, for what it's worth, Joe Biden met with protesters in Delaware,  met with black faith leaders, spoke with local leaders in Philadelphia, and reminded us this election is "a battle for the soul of our nation."

Others speaking out? Lots of military types. 

• Former Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen (Ret.), who said, among other things, "our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so;" American cities "are not 'battle spaces' to be dominated, and must never become so;' and "This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership."
• Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, who said, in part,  "Here in these United States, we built laws, customs, and traditions that focus on the appropriate use of the military outside the country. The idea of “boots on the ground” and “dominating the battlespace” in our American cities is anathema to America."
• Former Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Martin Dempsey (Ret.), who tweeted "America’s military, our sons and daughters, will place themselves at risk to protect their fellow citizens. Their job is unimaginably hard overseas; harder at home. Respect them, for they respect you. America is not a battleground. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy. #BeBetter"

But the one that probably hurt Trump the most? Former Secretary of Defense Gen. Jim Mattis, one of Trump's Generals, the one with the cool nickname. Here's just a bit of what he said.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people - does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.

That one would have had to hurt a normal person. Here's what it prompted in the president.

Please don't wonder for even a second whether Trump gave Mattis the 'Mad Dog' nickname  - he didn't.  It's a lie, and those we don't need to wonder about.

Sunday School 5/26/19

Let's see how far we can make it, hoping for three classrooms today: two discussions with people of whom I'm not fond, and one with a person with whom I'm relatively unfamiliar.

So let's start there, with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan  and Beto O'Rourke had a sit-down.  First up was immigration.

O'Rourke was asked if he favors 'catch and release' - no, this is not about fishing, it's about detaining and then releasing immigrants, giving them a court date and trusting them to appear as scheduled. He pointed out that, historically, when we assign them case managers, 99% of them come back for their hearing. He doesn't like the 'catch and release' term any more than I do.

I wouldn't call it catch and release. I'd call it helping those who are seeking asylum in this country to follow our laws. 

Brennan asked if, under his administration, the folks who cross illegally at non-points of entry would be detained

... Those families, if they pose no threat to this country or the communities in which they are apprehended should be released with a case manager who ensures they follow our laws, that they attend their court hearings, that they meet their appointments 

They talked about his campaign, and then Brennan asked if the Democratic Party needs some kind of "generational change." He pointed to the sense of urgency on the part of voters, saying in part.

All I know is that we need to match that with a relentless energy that brings people in who may have been left out before.... We need to be able to bring in new energy. We need to be able to bring in new voters. We need to make sure that this democracy, so badly damaged, works for everyone...

He said that Russia is our greatest adversary, noting that after the Mueller Report came out, Trump called Vladimir Putin for a private chat, noting

We've got the most dangerous person who's ever held office in the White House right now who's inviting the involvement of our greatest adversaries. And we've got to be able to stand up not as Democrats but as Americans to this challenge. 

He's right on that, I think.

Trump in Transition (v40)

Oh, this is just SO rich.

The president, who has been on the record as an enemy of a free press for his entire term, going back at least as far as when lied about the size of his manhood inauguration crowd and threw a fit when the press disproved his blatant false statement.

It has not slowed down, at all.

He loved the press when he was making a name for himself and his gold plated toilets and all that back in the day, but now that the press (other than the Trump News Network, of course) is no longer lapping up what he's dribbling, it's a different story.

The Trump administration equates boisterous, lie-filled, race-baiting political rallies and machine-gun-esque tweet storms and pre-flight gaggles as official communications and transparent dealings with the press, but doesn't like to hold actual press conferences where the people - that's you and me - are allowed, through the press corps, to get answers to some of our questions.

Why? Because administration officials either

• don't like lying on behalf of the president any more, especially since we now know conclusively that they do that, or
• they don't like being called out on their lies, or
• they don't like having to answer questions,or even worse, having to answer followup questions, which you don't have to do on Twitter or Instagram, or
• perhaps they're waiting for their emoji flash cards to come in, not sure. (They probably should have gotten a Prime membership.)

There have been two formal press briefings this year -- two official opportunities for the White House press corps to gather en masse and ask questions, all the while Press Secretary Sarah (Transparent and Honest) Sanders proclaims that this president is the most transparent and accessible ever in his dealings with the media. 

And so we come to this: the administration is revoking the 'hard pass' credentials of many reporters who cover the White House. The hard pass allows them access without additional scrutiny or delay for a two-year period; without it, they have to apply for entry, either for the day, the week, or for six months.  Hard passes are lost if a person hasn't been working at the White House "at least 50% of the time over the previous 180 days." Random exceptions are being granted, although there apparently aren't clear guidelines on what's worthy of one.

Access is not being limited to the Hannitys and Carlsons and Pirros and the Fox-and-Friendsers, of course -- because they are not reporters, and they don't participate as such.

They are the propaganda ministers of this administration, with unfettered, 24-7-365 access to the president, helping drive his #MakingAmericaHateAgain message and helping him swat away the information that's being reported by actual journalists.

The reason for this? It's about security, they say. It seems there is an unknown number of hard passes in circulation, which poses a security risk, according to Sanders.

Which is kind of comical, actually.

• The Trump administration allowed people access to national security information without full and appropriate security clearances. 

• They issued security clearances against the judgment of the people who make decisions on clearances for a living. 

• They dealt with a foreign policy emergency in the public dining room of the president's money-making club, in full view of diners, who were seen taking photos of the goings-on. 

• The president regularly charges the press as being the enemy of the people, which has inspired his followers to send bombs to media outlets, and more.

I don't pretend that all journalists are good ones, or that there isn't a bias in the media -- after all, "there are good people on both sides -- on both sides." Media outlets on the right of center tend to report one way, and those on the left of center tend to report a different way. But that doesn't make them our enemies - it challenges us to read with intention, to discern the unconscious or conscious bias, and to act accordingly.

We have the right and responsibility to determine what to believe.  And we have the right to have elected officials, most importantly the president, answer our questions. That's not a privilege, as this administration seems to think.

And nothing that this White House does in its dealings with the media - and by extension, with you and me - earn it the "transparent" or "honest" label, including this latest action.

TGIF 4/19/19

About the only person I know who's begging for Monday is Donald Trump.

Supposedly folks in the White House are hoping that by the time Monday rolls around, people will have tired of talking about what the Mueller Report really says, and will have tired of speculating on whether it's now smart - or possible, even - to actually believe a single thing the president says.

I doubt there's anyone who will ever again think that Sarah Sanders is telling the truth from behind the podium, no matter what day it is - so they don't care all that much. Her attempts to explain that she wasn't lying when she lied repeatedly about "countless" FBI agents,  that she was misspeaking, or heaven forbid, 'not acting like a Democrat' or some such nonsense,  were laughable.

Maybe the folks at Merriam-Webster are looking forward to Monday; it might take them that long to try and write new definitions for 'presidential' and 'exoneration' and 'total BS' and 'liar liar pants on fire' and who knows what else they'll think of to redefine while they're waiting to get back to work.

Sunday School 4/14/19

Let's listen in as George Stephanopoulos and Chris Wallace try and interview Sarah Sanders, shall we?

On This Week, the questions started with the threat by the president to send migrants to sanctuary cities. This was previously suggested and according to reports, was determined to be illegal, but that's not stopping the rhetoric or the planning, it seems.

Look, this is an option on the table... we've talked about a number of different things over the last two years that we'd love to see happen... If Democrats would step up and help the president fix the laws, this all could go away, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and that would be the best thing for the country...

George pressed her on the legality question, something that former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen had addressed, and wondered how they can continue to push the idea. Sanders first said it wasn't logistically feasible, but then completely ignored that it was determined to be illegal.

The president heard the idea, he likes it so - well, we're looking to see if there are options that make it possible and going a full and thorough and extensive review. The president likes the idea and Democrats have said they want these individual into their communities so let's see if it works and everybody gets a win out of it. 

When George wondered why the president even likes the idea, since it might encourage even more immigrants, and they'd be harder to track down once the set up roots in communities across the country, Sanders clarified that the president's priority is stopping illegal immigration in the first place, but the Dems are to blame.

They'd rather spend all of their time attacking the president and -- on these baseless and taxpayer funded investigations instead of doing what they were elected to do, and that's actually solve problems.  

Sanders took offense to debunked stories that the president had allegedly offered a pardon to folks  if they closed the border, which was reported by CNN and the NY Times.

Sunday School 9/30/18

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stopped in to visit with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday; Lindsey Graham and Mazie Hirono checked in on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and John Dickerson had an interesting round table on CBS' Face the Nation. Let's start with Sanders.

After talking at length about the current state of the Kavanaugh nomination, where nothing new was disclosed and Sanders stuck with the Trump line, Wallace moved to a 'lightning round' of questions for her.

On the looming Trump/Rosenstein meeting, she's not sure when it will happen, nor that there's only the one issue on the table, that Rosenstein allegedly threatened to tape the president and to potentially invoke the 25th amendment. She "wouldn't be surprised" if other topics came up, she said, and couldn't speak to whether or not Rosenstein would keep his job.

The next question was about money, and the short-term spending bill the president signed on Friday; the bill funds Homeland Security until 12/7 without any new money for the border wall. If Congress doesn't pass additional funding, Wallace wondered if Trump would shut down the government.

We'll have to wait and see what happens. But the president is committed to making sure we build a wall and getting funding for it. And if I know anything about Donald Trump, he ultimately get what he's fighting for, and that will be the wall.

Finally, he asked about the three weeks it's been since Sanders last held a formal White House press room briefing. She didn't say they'd get rid of the briefings completely, but she pointed out that Trump does more Q&A than any other president did, and that

I always think that if you can hear directly from the president and the press has a chance to ask the president questions directly, that's infinitely better than talking to me. 

From Stephanopoulos's conversations, we didn't learn anything new from Hirono, but these comments from Graham seemed new.

So the FBI will do a supplemental investigation. Them I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee - who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust, who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California, who released the anonymous letter given to the committee by Cory Gardner.  We're going to do a wholesale full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again.

From Dickerson's round table conversation, here's what Molly Ball offered:

And the emotional outpouring that you saw all across the country, people calling in to their -- their members of Congress, people watching transfixed on screens all across the country, this hearing, it was a really wrenching and emotional occasion for America. And I think it's one that we're going to look back on as a cultural touchstone for years to come. In political terms we are going into a midterm election where had this never occurred, it was already an election about women's anger and women's voices and a female-driven backlash to all of the cultural and political currents of the day...it's almost absurdly fitting that this should be the sort of final political controversy for this year's election.

I'll close with John Dickerson's comments on this mess.

The arena added to the anguish. The world's greatest deliberative body handled society's toughest questions with the nuance of a freight train. Partisanship shattered the dish that is supposed to cool the hot cup. At the end of this drama there will be no winners. And yet, calls to sexual assault hotlines have increased two hundred percent since Ford's testimony. Senators on both sides and even president Trump deemed (Ford) credible. It is now the default in America that accusers must be treated seriously and respectfully. Now, only the willfully ignorant don't know why women don't report abuse.

This means my daughter will live in a better world that her mother, who like thousands of others was inspired to explain why she didn't report last week, a collective act that transformed what had been a wound into a walking stick. There is more anguish to come from this drama, but the culture has changed. A week of public anguish will mean less private anguish in the future. 

For those of you who, like John Dickerson's wife, and me, and tens of thousands of other women, didn't report their abuse, I wish you strength, whether you keep or share your secret, and peace.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v141)

Well, well, well - another Wednesday's here already.  Boy, time sure flies when you're having fun, doesn't it?

I wondered yesterday (a day early, I know) why we don't hold traditional media outlets to the same standard we're trying to use for social media outlets, and why fake accounts on Facebook seem worse than a lying, tweeting president. I will always wonder about that.

Staying in the same vein, I wonder how anyone can not love the fact that the president, after months of saying there was no collusion, is now saying that collusion is not a crime.  What on earth can it matter, if there was none? Why send the minions out with this message, unless...

Sarah Sanders, the president's Press Secretary, who happens to be the person most likely to lie on behalf of the president - lie, or 'clarify,' I should clarify - talked today about how the press has a history of misbehaving.

The media routinely reports on classified information and government secrets that put lives in danger and risks valuable national security tools. One of the worst cases was the reporting on the US ability to listen to Osama bin Laden's satellite phone in the late 90s. Because of that reporting, he stopped using that phone and the country lost valuable intelligence.

The CNN report linked above points out that her example was debunked a long time ago, not that it matters. Because she went on to say,

We fully support a free press, but there also comes a high level of responsibility with that. 

And from the Press Secretary, too, there comes a high level of responsibility; I wonder if Sanders understands that?

Also today, the president 'suggested' that Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III should end the Mueller probe, tweeting

...This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!

Now, you may not have been paying close attention, but as recently as June 7th the president was yammering about 13 Angry Democrats. Here's one of dozens of tweets on the subject.

Has Mueller gone and gotten himself four more? Isn't there a limit on these things?

Seriously, I can't help wondering whether all of the Trumpeters will now start using 17 instead of 13, just like the president told them to , or will they stay with 13?

The other big wondering, of course, is whether Sessions will do what the president opined, You know that it was only an opinion, right, not an order or a proclamation or a presidential policy or anything. According to Rudy Giuliani, anyway --and the opinion was almost certainly based on the start of the Manafort trial.

Trump himself wondered why no one told him that Manafort was under investigation, as if he might not have hired him had he only known.

Which is pretty silly - I mean, there's no way he would have paid any attention, right? After all, he ignored information about Russian interference in our elections, information he was given repeatedly by all of the experts, including his own experts; and that information, sadly, he still does not fully believe.

And that's our final segue of this Wednesday: back to the Press Secretary, and her defense of the president's comment that to go out and buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, and you even need one of those in order to buy anything. Clearly, the statement is not true, but it riled up the base on voter suppression, so that's good.

But what was so wonder-ful was Sanders' statement on why Trump told the lie in the first place:

...the president wants to see the integrity of our election systems upheld. And that's the purpose of his comments.

I wonder how she sleeps at night.

Wondering on Wednesday (v138)

Wondering, wondering, wondering... about hypocrisy, tonight.

I wonder if the people who are outraged - outraged, I tell you! - about Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a Virginia restaurant were equally outraged when gays were refused services? It's funny, because some of the same people who think the latter is OK think the former is not. And suggesting that 'we' (meaning liberals, or Democrats) would be outraged if a gay person was denied services, when we all should be outraged when that happens, right? And not for nothing 'we' already did the outrage thing on this, resulting in marriage equality, among other things.

I also wonder about people who think protesting administration officials is 'discrimination' - what particular protected class might Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen represent?

And how about Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao rising to the occasion and defending her man, Kentucky's Republican obstructionist Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? If you haven't seen it, you can watch it here -- and the article raises some interesting points, too, about how conservatives in particular reacted the incident. I can't help wondering if they get how bad they look?

Speaking of how bad they look, I wonder if the folks who think it's wrong for a business owner to refuse service to someone think it's OK when the president calls upon his followers to boycott American businesses? You know, when he gets mad at Amazon, or Nordstrom, or anyone else? Is it OK for him to do that in his official capacity, I wonder?

Thinking about the Supreme Court decision today that people can't be forced to pay fees to support non-political activities of unions, even if they directly benefit from those activities, made me think about another Supreme Court decision: the one about companies having deeply held beliefs.

Consider the argument about people working for companies like Hobby Lobby, which doesn't believe in providing certain types of contraception that are required benefits under the Affordable Care Act.  It's been said many times on my social  media pages and possibly yours as well, that a person doesn't have to take a job if the benefits aren't to their liking, and if you go to work for Hobby Lobby you know what you're getting, blah blah blah and you don't have to work there if you don't like it yadda yadda yadda. 

I wonder why a person who thinks it's OK for someone to be denied a benefit based on a company's belief thinks it's OK for person to get (for free) a benefit their coworkers pay for? How can both of these be OK?

I wonder about civility in the age of Trump. You know: talking about penis size during a presidential debate, and about the physical appearance of his female opponents, and of course the Access Hollywood tape, and promising to pay anyone arrested for assaulting protesters at his rallies, and all of that stuff and of course,lying about President Obama's birth certificate.

When the president says stuff (and by stuff I mean outright lies, abusive comments, insulting comments, derogatory comments, denigrating comments, racist comments, sexist comments, abject falsehoods and the like) it's OK, it's all rah rah and #MAGA and #AmericaFirst and the like, with not the slightest concern for civility or honesty or humanity, but when an FBI guy does a little reassuring pillow-texting with his paramour, all bets are off and he's nefarious and everything is deadly serious and he has to be lying about it being innocent? Why is that, I wonder? Why does nothing the president says or does matter, but everything everyone else says and does matters as if it were life and death?

And I'll stop after this one: why must the Mueller investigation end, I wonder, when it's been going on for not even 14 months and is producing results -- indictments and guilt pleas -- when the Benghazi investigations - 7 or 8 of them, I think? -  lasted years, cost millions, and resulted in nothing?

I wonder about all of this, I do. I could keep going, but I think you get the gist.  The outrage! Oh, the outrage!

No -- make it faux, the outrage.

About that, I don't have to wonder.

Sunday School 4/15/18

I only visited one classroom today, ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos -- I just didn't have it in me to go sit through the rest of them. 

If you're interested, here are transcripts for Fox News Sunday (UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and lame duck Congressman Trey Benghazi Gowdy),  Meet the Press (Sen Joni Ernst, former CIA Director John Brennan, and lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan), Face the Nation (Haley again, former veep candidate Sen. Tim Kaine) and State of the Union (Sen. Angus King, Preet Bharara, and Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' attorney).

So why ABC and George?  Mostly because Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was giving an interview, something that doesn't happen all that often. What did she have to say?

On Syria: The mission 100% met its objectives to destroy critical chemical weapons infrastructure, and send the 'red line' message to Russia, Syria and Iran. On 'next steps', she offered

Look, the president has got three big objectives when it comes to the conflict there. He wants to defeat ISIS. He has talked about this relentlessly. We are almost there. We have made extraordinary gains against ISIS...And this president has lead that effort. And he's been successful on that front.  The other things we have to do, we have to contain Iran, We have to make sure that the bad acting that they have been a part of doesn't continue and doesn't grow. Those are big and key points. And then last, we have to stop the spread and the use of mass chemical weapons, and that was one of the things you saw the president take action on, on Friday. Those are big things that the president has been focused on  and we've had some success so far. We're going to continue building on that.

And on James Comey, about whom the president tweeted rudely during their discussion, Sanders gave us this information in response to a handful of questions.

Look, it's been very clear that James Comey is a self-admitted leaker. He lied to Congress. He's been inconsistent...

Look, he said that he opened the Hillary Clinton investigation on its merits, now we're finding out certainly it had something to do with the political landscape. I find it outrageously unbelievable that Jim Comey, the man that takes these copious notes and recollects every detail of every conversation that he had can't remember why he would have specifically opened an investigation into a presidential candidate, particularly somebody he thought would become the president.... I mean, give me a break. The guy knew exactly what he was doing. He thought Hillary Clinton would win. And he thought this would give him some cover. He thought that he made these decisions based on the political landscape and not on the facts of the case.

And when the person that is supposed to lead the highest law enforcement agency in our country starts making decisions based on political environments instead of on what is right and what is wrong, it's a really dangerous position. And I think that's one of the reasons there is such a huge bipartisan consensus that James Comey doesn't have credibility and shouldn't be leading the FBI any longer. 

Regarding the president's pardon of Scooter Libby, former VP Dick Cheney's guy, and whether it was Trump's way of sending a message to Mueller and everyone,

That couldn't be further from the truth. Once again, Adam Schiff barely - rarely bases any comments in reality. Talk about a grandstander. He probably is hook line and sinker buddies with Jim Comey. They both have never found a TV camera they don't love to be in front of.

And finally, Stephanopoulos asked

Is the president actively considering firing Robert Mueller or removing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein from overseeing the investigation?

Sanders' response?

I'm not aware of any plans to make those movements. Look, the president has been extremely cooperative, as have a number of members of the administration. Everything that's been asked of us, we've provided. And we're continuing to be cooperative. But we do have some real concerns with some of the activities and some of the scope that the investigation has gone, but 100% maintain that at this point, after repeating it for nearly a year and a half, there absolutely was no collusion with Russia and that's exactly what they've been investigating.

Not only has the special counsel but a number of different congressional committees have been looking at this for over a year and come up with nothing. I think it really is getting time to move on and I certainly think the American people would appreciate Congress and the rest of the country being able to focus on some of the things that really impact them.

Of course, everyone keeps telling us nothing's going to happen the rest of this year, with the mid-terms and all, so I wish George had pushed her on that one a little.

And Adam Schiff, the Congressman from California who has been a thorn in the Administration's side in his role as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, had this to say about Sanders.

I don't think she likes me very much, George.

See your around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v119)

Another Wednesday upon us - and a ton of wondering going on.

We know there are any number of things wrong with disgraced doctor/serial abuser/child porn aficionado Larry Nassar, but even given everything we've heard about him and what he did, I wonder for the life of me what he thought he would accomplish by suggesting, in his letter to the judge in his current case, that his victims were lying and were 'scorned women' in the process?

I was a good doctor because my treatments worked, and those patients that are now speaking out are the same ones that came back over and over. The media convinced them that everything I did was wrong and bad. They feel I broke their trust. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Or, no fury like over 150 women abused by beastly man who took advantage of his position, and the fear of the athletes, and their trust in authority, when no one - not even their parents, in some cases - would believe them.

Staying with USA gymnastics, are companies doing the right thing by pulling their sponsorship from the organization? Does that serve the program, or hurt it?  I wonder if they couldn't do a whole lot more to have a positive impact by demanding change -- real change-- in the leadership, policies and procedures of the national program , and pulling their dollars only if the changes being sought were not realized? Seems we're hurting future champions because prior ones were failed. 

I heard that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said today that local law enforcement officials can't pick and choose what laws they enforce. Her comments were in relation to so-called 'sanctuary cities' but I found them relevant here in New York, where another provision of the NY SAFE Act is coming into effect. I have to wonder whether anyone in the NY State Police or say, the Cayuga County sheriff's office, has heard about that, since they're not going to be enforcing the latest provision, the one requiring renewal of  pistol permits?

And, speaking of  crime, why did it take the president so long to talk about the shooting in Kentucky? I really don't understand that one at all. He is much quicker to talk about attacks in foreign countries than he is to talk about bad acts here in America, at least, when they're committed by plain old ordinary (white) Americans -- what happened to America first?   If the shooting had been committed by an immigrant - any immigrant, legal or not -- I wouldn't be wondering about how long it took him to comment, I'm sure.

Poll Watch: It's Not the Economy, Stupid

If it hadn't have been for that Sarah Sanders comment on Twitter, I would likely have missed the Quinnipiac poll for a couple of days. Here's the tweet that caught my eye:

Sounds pretty good for the Trump administration, right? 66% of voters having a positive opinion of anything that's related to the president would be worth tweeting, I agree. But the problem is, this seems to be a cherry-picked outcome from the poll that is otherwise mostly unfavorable in a variety of ways about Sanders' boss. Let's take a look at the headline of the press release for the poll.

TRUMP IS INTELLIGENT, BUT NOT FIT OR LEVEL-HEADED, U.S. VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL; FIRST YEAR WAS 'DISASTER,' 'CHAOTIC,' SUCCESSFUL'

Wow - genius, maybe - but it sure doesn't sound like stable genius, does it?

Before we dive in, let's do the fine print: the survey was taken the 5th - 9th, with 1,106 voters surveyed via land lines and cell phone. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Good?

Some highlights:

• Trump's approval rating is only 36%, down a point from the last poll; across all demographics except Republicans - political affiliation, age, gender, race - more disapprove than approve.
• The same is true with the level of disapproval; 'strongly disapprove' leads in every demographic except Republicans, where strongly approve, naturally, is the winner.
• Again across all demographics except the Republicans, people say Trump did about as was expected in his first year. And, with the exception of white men, "worse than expected" had a higher percentage than "better than expected." Republicans think he did better than and white men think he did better than expected.
• And, when it comes to optimism or the lack thereof for the next few years of  Trump presidency, Republicans (87%), whites without college degrees (58%) and white men (51%) were the only optimistic groups. Folks 65 and older, and whites each were 49% optimistic and 49% pessimistic. All other groups? Pessimistic.

While Sanders grabbed hold of the positive vote for the economy, there's not a lot in the poll that credits Trump for what's going on.

• Most voters (except Republicans), think Trump's policies aren't making a difference in their personal finances; this is consistent regardless of race, age, income level, and class (working, middle, upper middle+).
• Results are fairly mixed on whether Trump's policies are helping the economy. In total, 37% say helping, 29% say hurting, and 30% say no difference. Women (34%) 18-34 year olds (35%), blacks (44%) and Hispanics (43%) and folks with household income of $30K -$50K (35%) say his policies are hurting the economy.
• Most demographic populations credit President Obama not president Trump for the economy; Republicans (70%), those 65 and older (47%), and whites without college degrees (46%) credit Trump. 

Moving on to the questions touching on what people think about Trump.

• Only Republicans think Trump shares their values (76% yes, 22% no). The only demographic that's even close? You guessed it - whites without college degrees (46% yes, 51% no). Overall, 65% say no.
• Everyone, other than Democrats, (32%)  think Trump is a strong person; 59%  of all respondents say he is. On the flip side, 69% of votes say he's not level headed, with only the Republicans (a remarkable 65%) say he is.
• More folks say he's intelligent than not (53% - 44%). Non college educated whites (67%),  men generally (56%) and white men specifically (61%) agree by the largest percentage.
• Most think he doesn't care about average Americans (59% no, 38% yes), with Dems and blacks disagreeing the most (93% and 88%, respectively); that he doesn't have good leadership skills (59% yes, 39% no); and that he's not honest (63% no, 34% yes).

What grade did he earn for his first year?

• A - 16%
• B - 16%
• C - 11%
• D - 17%
• F - 39%

Across all demographics, he earned an F more frequently than any other grade, other than GOP voters, 91% of whom gave him a C or better. I want what they're smoking.

And, on "what one word would you use to describe the president's first year in office?" - a question where people could say whatever they wanted, over 40 terms were mentioned at least five times.

• Positive terms and the number of times mentioned included: successful (42); great (27); good (26); awesome (21), excellent (20), and outstanding (15). 
• Neutral terms? Interesting (23 mentions), different (10) and surprising (10). 
• Negative words included disaster (69), chaotic (62), horrible (28), embarrassing (24), terrible (24), and disappointing (19).

Finally, speaking of embarrassing, by a difference of 40 percentage points (66% to 26%), voters think Trump has damaged our reputation around the world, rather than helped repair it. Only -- yes, Republicans - think that he's helping (64%) more than he's hurting (25%).

So -- while Trump, House Republicans in particular but Senate Republicans, too seem to think that the stock market doing well is what "America" means, the rest of the population thinks there's more to it than that. 

Yay, us!

Trump in Transition (v26)

He's a mean one, Mr. Trump. A jerk, a slime, a pig! Oh -- sorry. I must have been typing out loud again.

The president continues his backsliding, hateful transition to the oafish NYC real estate developer he was before, well, before that fateful escalator ride.

He's a pig, for sure -- by his own admission.  He's rude - countless examples, not the least of which was his Megyn Kelly 'blood coming out of her...wherever' which, as he told us, meant her eyes (yeah, right) or his comment about Carly Fiorina's face. Or Rosie O'Donnell. Or flatchested women the world over.

So who is the latest victim of this delightful man and his petty attacks? That would Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, of course. And what did she do to Trump? Well, let's take a look at her tweets from earlier today.

When it comes to sexual assault, harassment and the general mistreatment of women, we must be able to call out anyone, Democrat or Republican. 

As elected leaders, let's rise to the occasion and not shrink away from it. That is what the larger #MeToo movement is all about. Let's send a clear message none of this is okay. 

 That means Farenthold should step aside. Moore should never set foot in the Senate, and president Trump should be held accountable.

The accusations against more are disgusting. And president Trump has admitted on tape to how he treats women. His campaigning for Moore isn't leadership, it's shameful. 

We are in a moment of reckoning - and the silence from Republicans is deafening. It is long past time for them to join Democrats in holding members of their own party accountable. 

President Trump should resign. But, of course, he won't hold himself accountable. Therefore, Congress should investigate the multiple sexual harassment and assault allegations against him. 

Now, I appreciate there are some very strong feelings about Gillibrand's position. She led the charge against Al Franken with her zero tolerance position, which endeared her to many and blew any chance she had of becoming president, according to others. Heck -- some commenters want her primaried for what she did to Franken; they, and others, feel she was both late to the game on calling out Trump, and wrong to call for an investigation of the creep-in-chief but not allowing Franken the same courtesy.  It's a mixed bag, for sure.

And after all of this, there was the Trump response, which was bigly presidential as you might imagine.

Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office "begging" for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill and Crooked - USED!

Garbled message aside ("begging"? Disloyal to Bill and Crooked? USED! -- #WhatTheSniff), it's hard not to notice the (and would do anything for them) comment nestled in there, isn't it?  What do you think he meant?

a. This is simply talking about a rigged system that we have that is broken, in which special interests control our government.

b. This is a (fill in the blank) shooting off his mouth because, well, because he's a (fill in the blank) who frequently acts like a (fill in the blank), in the most presidential way possible.

c. This was an attempt to bully, intimidate and slut-shame Senator Gillibrand.

d. This was a statement by a misogynist, compulsive liar, and admitted sexual predator and a bully from whom no one is safe.

Yeah -  no matter which response you pick, the guy's a pig, a jerk, and a slime.

And no, I won't respect the office if the person occupying it doesn't have the sense to. And he's still #notmypresident.

Reactions to the Franken Statement

Here's what Al Franken said, among other things, in his announcement today that he will be resigning:

I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party.

(I wondered about that yesterday.)

Here are a few reactions from Fox News:

Franken should not have resigned. His fate should have been left 2the people of MN. Moore, who has sexual contact w a 14-yr old, should drop out. Conyers, who hit on his employees, should have resigned. Franken is a creep who acted inappropriately, but his facts are different. ~ Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary

We have a president who acknowledged on tape that he assaulted women. I would hope that he pays attention to what's going on and think about resigning. ~Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 

The NRSC is confident Republicans will be able to win this soon-to-be vacant Senate seat come November, and look forward to expanding our Senate Majority. ~ National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Michael McAdams 

If @alfranken is going to resign tomorrow, I think he should to it on the condition that there are congressional hearings about @realDonaldTrump 's sexual misconduct allegations. ~ Maggie Gyllenhaal 

And here is Sarah Sanders, current White House press secretary, responding to questions today.

Look, the president addressed the comments back during the campaign. We feel strongly that the people of this country also addressed that when they elected Donald Trump to be president. And I've addressed it several times from here and don't have anything new to add. (when asked about Franken's comment on Trump and Moore)

I mean, I think the president treats -- certainly, as a woman myself, I've never felt anything but treated with the highest level of respect and been empowered to do my job. And I think that's what I've seen the president do, day in and day out, since we've been here and during the campaign. And I think that's a pretty good start and pretty good example on that front. (in response to the question, "In, again, a broad, 30,000-foot way, does the president believe that he has a credible role in leading this conversation?")

The Truth is Out There

The title of this post, of course, comes from the X-Files. It's also been commonly referenced when describing White House press briefings with Sarah Sanders at the podium, as it was in this Forbes article.

"The truth is out there."  That's the tagline of the new TV show The X-Files, and it's a good thing the show is coming back in 2018, because its premise couldn't be more timely.

The latest example of this timely premise came about after the president retweeted the anti-Muslim videos which had been shared by a far-right group in Britain. Sanders maintained that anyone questioning the tweets was barking up the wrong tree. Here's an example:

She reiterated that again today, in her press briefing, as many times as she could, and with only limited success.

Q: ...I want to ask about the videos that the president tweeted yesterday. Firstly, does the president feel that he has an obligation to ensure that the information that he shares on his Twitter feed to millions of people is accurate?

A. I think the president feels that bringing up important issues of our time, like extreme violence and terrorism, are important to do. That was what he was doing in that process, and I think he's going to continue to do that in a number of venues whether it's through speeches, whether it's through Twitter or other social media platforms. 

That went well, don't you think? Here's part two.

Q: But does he understand, though, that sharing those videos might incite violence against Muslims? And does he understand that he's elevated a fringe political group that many people outside of Britain didn't even know about until he tweeted?

A:  Look, I think what he's done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue and a real threat, and that's extreme violence and extreme terrorism, something that we know to be very real and something the president feels strongly about talking about, and bringing up and making sure is an issue every single day, that we're looking at the best ways to protect Americans. 

Whoa. He's going to be spreading lies and hate every single day, officially?  Someone tell Twitter and Facebook, so his accounts can be suspended!

And not for nothing, but this particular conversation has not been 'elevated' because no one's talking about terrorism as result of the president's tweets. They're talking about how embarrassing it was, to America and to our allies; they're talking about the fact that one of the videos was a fake and the other two were unverified; they're talking about how none of them happened in Britain, and not in the US, for that matter.

And people are talking about the reaction from Prime Minister Theresa May and others, including this one.

And from someone else named Theresa May Scrivener who was tagged (instead of the Prime Minister) in that follow up tweet. And how that tweet, which said that "we're doing fine" is the total opposite what he's been telling us all along, ever since his 'total ban on Muslims' speech.

Sanders kept going, though, after giving us the 'elevate the conversation' line, with a straight face, no less. And she contradicted the "We're doing just fine!" remark in her response.

Q: On that point, Sarah, did the president, when he retweeted Jayda Fransen, know who she was?

A:  No, I don't believe so. But again, I think he knew that what the issues are, and that is that we have a real threat of extreme violence and terrorism, not just in this country, but across the globe, particularly in Europe. And that was the point he was making and I don't really have very much to add beyond that. 

He didn't even know who he was retweeting? And it didn't occur to him to look at the woman's profile?

Well, actually, tonight you can't do that - her account has been suspended, but several people have posted a tweet Fransen supposedly sent which claimed that WWE wrestlers were Islamic hate preachers.

I'm not posting it because I can't verify it was one she really sent - I guess that's just one more thing that differentiates me from the president.

Back to the Forbes article, which notes three things about the truth:

1. There is such a thing as truth.
2. Evidence is how we discover the truth.
3. Truth is the basis of both democracy and capitalism.

After explaining those three things, it goes on:

The president uses a misleading, mislabeled video as evidence that Islam poses a grave threat to the United State, and his press secretary backs him up. The real threat to our democracy isn't a religion and its millions of followers but the Trump administration's abuse of power and utter contempt for the truth. 

Now, that is something we should "be making sure is an issue, every single day."

What They're Saying: The Manafort Shoe Drops

So, Paul Manafort and his right hand man, Rick Gates, were indicted on a variety of charges, from money laundering to conspiring against the United States. And some overzealous Trump campaign foreign policy advisor volunteer named George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty and is now a source for the Robert Mueller investigation.

Against that backdrop, what are people saying? Here's a sampling.

But look, today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity. The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Russia. There's evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election. We've been saying from say one there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all. ~ Sarah Huckabee Sanders

They've made an indictment. I really have nothing to add because I haven't even read it, so I'm not going to speculate on something I haven't read. So there's just no point in doing that. ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan

The special counsel has found a reason on criminal violations to indict two individuals, and I will leave that up to the special counsel to make that determination. It doesn't change anything with our investigation. We received document from and had interest in two of the individuals named, but clearly the criminal charges put them in the Special Counsel's purview. ~ Richard Burr, (R-NC), Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. 

The president must not, under any circumstances, interfere with the special counsel's work in any way. If he does so, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues. ~Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary and the Dems the focus?????

... Also, there is NO COLLUSION! ~Donald Trump 

And finally -- you thought I was going to close with the president's profound punctuation, didn't you?  Nope - not tonight. 

And finally,  I'll leave you with this:

It's clear from Mueller's court documents -- if you read between the lines with your head in a microwave - that the Russia-connected "overseas professor" who met Papadopoulos was actually Clinton wearing a costume. She is known as a master of disguise, which explains how she hid her identity while killing President John F. Kennedy, raiding the US consulate in Benghazi and being Charles Manson. ~Rex Huppke, Chicago Tribune