Sunday School 1/20/19

Boy, it was a tough decision today on which lectures to attend.

On the one hand, my senator Kirsten Gillibrand was on three out of five shows, missing only NBC's Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani was on MTP and veep Mike Pence was on FNS. The one bonus is that Lindsey Graham wasn't on any of the shows, so that made them all a little more palatable.

In the end, although I try and stay away from MTP because of Chuck Todd, I caved today and went with the worst lawyer in the nation, even though it made me feel more than a little like an ambulance chaser myself.  Let's take a look at how the conversation went, starting with the BuzzFeed story that Trump told former attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

Chuck Todd: Are you 100% confident that the president never once asked Michael Cohen to do anything but tell the truth to Congress?

Rudy Giuliani: 100% certain of that. And also, I, you know, I should add the BuzzFeed story was a story that the president had counseled him or told him to lie and that there were tapes, and texts, and federal law enforcement sources, two of them, were cited for it.  And I spent a great deal of the day on Saturday with that because I knew from the very beginning that it wasn't true. But, I mean, to their credit, the Justice Department and the special counsel's office said that the story was inaccurate. And the inaccuracy is that there's no evidence that the president told him to lie..I can tell you his counsel to Michael Cohen throughout that entire period was, "Tell the truth."...

Sunday School 4/7/19

Today's classroom adventure comes from CBS and Face the Nation, with Margaret Brennan talking with the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Let's see how it went.

On whether Congress and the public have the right to see all of the information in the actual Mueller report, Rudy would like all of the information to go to the House Intelligence Committee, and eventually to the public.

I would like him to get all of the information...everything... But I can't control that and I can't change the law. And the AG has a difficult job, and I didn't appreciate (Jerry Nadler's) suggestion the AG would be biased. I know Bill Barr for many many years. I think people in this town know him, He's a man of the highest integrity. Also everything he's doing is also being done by Rod Rosenstein. That (summary) was put out by Barr and Rosenstein. 

Brennan wondered if the president was waiving all executive privilege, noting that Trump has said he thinks the report should be made public. To answer, Rudy had to invoke the Ghost of Clintons past.

The - the president's cooperation with with investigation it was unprecedented. Bill Clinton fought every single subpoena. And - and it was a knock down drag out battle.

Brennan noted that Clinton did ultimately sit down and do an interview, and noted that Trump had not.

That's why the president didn't have to because they couldn't win in court. They had every piece of information. They couldn't suggest a question they didn't have the answer to because we supplied them with the answers to everything and the president did answer questions in writing.

Brennan asked if any information would be withheld. Giuliani seemed unsure.

I don't know, Margaret. I don't know. The AG has said he's going to put out the maximum amount of information possible. The only thing that will stop him will be legal barriers. I hop there are a few because I don't like what Jerry Nadler just did. Innuendo and there must be more -- look. Jerry Nadler prejudged this case a year ago. He was - he was talking about impeachment. He was overheard on Amtrak talking about impeachment well before the report came out. So when he talks about the AG being biased, my goodness - and on his committee he's got some of the most rabid people that hate Trump. This is - we're not going before a court here, We're going before a political body -- that is highly partisan and has made up its mind. 

There was more - much more.

Wondering on Wednesday (v190) Part 1

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), of whom I am not fond, and Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), of whom I'm even less fond, presented their opening statements in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry. Let the wondering begin.

First, the Democrat; I recommend having at least a six-pack of 5-Hour Energy available.

In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire. In the following years, thirteen thousand Ukrainians died as they battled superior Russian forces.

Earlier this year Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine on a platform of ending the conflict and of tackling corruption. He was a newcomer to politics and immediately sought to establish a relationship with Ukraine's most powerful patron, the United States. The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether president Trump sought to exploit that ally's vulnerability and invite Ukraine's interference in our elections? Whether president Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or US military assistance, on Ukraine's willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency? 

The matter is as simple, and as terrible as that. Our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself, and what kind of conduct or misconduct the American people may come to expect from their Commander-in-Chief.

The president is not the Commander-in-Chief of the American people - he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. I wonder why Schiff doesn't know that?

There are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a President. While the Founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over policy, they also made impeachment a constitutional process that the Congress must utilize when necessary.

The facts in the present inquiry are not seriously contested. Beginning in January of this year,  the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pressed Ukrainian authorities to investigate Burisma, the country's largest natural gas producer, and the Bidens, since Vice-President was seen as a strong potential challenger to Trump.

Giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was Ukraine, not Russia that hacked the 2016 election. The nation's intelligence agencies have stated unequivocally that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that interfered in our election. But Giuliani believed this conspiracy theory, referred to as "Crowdstrike," shorthand for the company that discovered the Russian hack, would aid his client's reelection.

Giuliani also conducted a smear campaign against the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. On April 29, as a senior State Department official told her that although she had "done nothing wrong," president Trump had "lost confidence in her." With the sidelining of Yovanovitch, the stage was set for the establishment of an irregular channel in which Giuliani and later others, including Gordon Sondland -- an influential donor to the president's inauguration now serving as Ambassador to the European Union  - could advance the president's personal and political interests. 

As noted in testimony today, ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. Whether he independently decides he no longer has confidence in his diplomats, or he's told by a crazed minion that he no longer has confidence isn't really the issue, as far as I can see.

Yovanovitch's replacement in Kyiv, Ambassador Bill Taylor, is a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran. As he began to better understand the scheme through the summer of 2019, he pushed back, informing Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent and others about a plan to condition US government actions and funding on the performance of political favors by the Ukrainian government, favors intended for president Trump that would undermine our security and our elections. 

Several key events in this scheme took place in the month of July. On July 10th, Ambassador Sondland informed a group of US and Ukrainian officials meeting at the White House that, according to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian president with Trump would happen only if Ukraine undertook an investigation into "the energy sector," which was understood to mean Burisma, and specifically, the Bidens. National Security Advisor Bolton abruptly ended the meeting and said afterwards that he would not be - quote - "part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this" - end quote. 

At least so far, Bolton is not scheduled to appear before the committee, his attorney's dangling of tantalizing teases notwithstanding. And I wonder about that. I'm guessing that Bolton is behind the foreplay, or at least supportive of it, otherwise why would his attorney be doing it? And Bolton's first-hand telling of the "drug deal" story would be significantly more impressive than Schiff's.

A week later, on July 18, a representative from OMB, the White House agency that oversees federal spending, announced on a video conference call that Mulvaney, at the direction of the president, was freezing nearly $400 million in security assistance authorized and appropriated by Congress and which the entirety of the US national security establishment supported. 

This next part comes from the alleged 'transcript' the White House released, the one that clearly states is not a transcript. The real transcript of the call? That's on the Donny Dearest server, where White House types put the stuff Trump says that is way more scary than what we hear him say with our own two ears.

One week after that, Donald Trump would have the now infamous July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. During that call, Trump complained that the US relationship with Ukraine had not been "reciprocal." Later, Zelensky thanks Trump for his support "in the area of defense" and says that Ukraine was ready to purchase more Javelins, an antitank weapon that was among the most important deterrents of further Russian military action. Trump's immediate response: "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

Trump then requested that Zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 "Crowdstrike" conspiracy theory, and even more ominously, look into the Bidens. Neither of these investigations were in the US national interest, and neither as part of the official preparatory material for the call. Both, however, were in Donald Trump's personal interest, and in the interest of his 2020 re-election campaign. And the Ukrainian president knew about both in advance - because Sondland and others had been pressing Ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election, Burisma and the Bidens. 

Anyone still awake? How's that 5-Hour Energy stuff working for you? Hope it's holding out, because Schiff is going to recite more testimony for us.

After the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the National Security Council's top lawyer. The White House would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters. 

In the following weeks, Ambassador Taylor learned new facts about a scheme that even Sondland would describe as becoming more insidious. Taylor texted Sondland, "are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"  

And now, let's all sit back and wonder about simpler things -- summer turning to fall, with a dose of insidiocity.

 As summer turned to fall, "[i]t kept getting more insidious," Mr. Sondland testified. Mr. Taylor, who took notes of his conversations, said the ambassador told him in a September 1 phone call that "everything was dependent" on the public announcement of investigations "including security assistance." President Trump wanted Mr. Zelensky "in a public box." "President Trump is a businessman," Sondland said later. "When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check"

 In a sworn declaration after Taylor's testimony, Sondland would admit to telling the Ukrainians at a September 1st meeting in Warsaw, "that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks?"

As I read this next part, the "get over it" part from Mick Mulvaney, part of me wonders if Schiff will ever get over any of this?

The president's chief of staff confirmed Trump's efforts to coerce Ukraine by withholding aid. When Mick Mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking; "We do that all the time with foreign policy... I have news for everybody: get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen." The video of that confession is plain for all to see.  

Some have argued in the president's defense that the aid was ultimately released. That is true. But only after Congress began an investigation; only after the president's lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint about quid pro quos. A scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain personal political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before it is fully consummated. In fact, the security assistance had been delayed so long it would take another act of Congress to ensure that it would still go out. And that Oval Office meeting that Zelensky desperately sought - it still hasn't happened. 

And, I read somewhere, the White House was basically backed into a corner as the money needed to be released before the end of the fiscal year on September 30th; the money was released on the 11th. I wonder why Schiff didn't mention that, if it's true?

Now, I think we're getting to the meat of the issue (I think):

Although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. The president has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.   

And, in this part, he makes it clear that the investigation is not just about attempted extortion of Ukraine, it now includes Trump's obstruction of Congress.

These actions will force Congress to consider, as it did with President Nixon, whether Trump's obstruction of the constitutional duties of Congress constitute additional grounds for impeachment. If the President can simply refuse all oversight, particularly in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be irrevocably altered. That is not what the Founders intended. And the prospects for further corruption and abuse of power, in this administration or another, will be exponentially increased.

This is what we believe the testimony will show - both as to the president's conduct and as to his obstruction of Congress. The issue that we confront is the one posted by the president's Acting Chief of Staff when he challenged Americans to  "get over it." If we find that the president of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conduction investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts - a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid - must we simply "get over it?" Is that what Americans should now expect from their president? If this not impeachable conduct, what is? Does the oath of office itself - requiring that our laws be faithfully executed, that our president defend a constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition so that we become no monarch - still have meaning? 

These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country American was to become, "A Republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?

Our sanity: can we, keep it?

Nunes is in Part 2.

Sunday School 12/16/18

He's b-a-a-a-c-k!  Rudy Giuliani made it to a couple of lecture halls this Sunday morning, and boy was he trying to get some attention.

First, let's look at this exchange between Rudy and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday

Wallace asked about reports that special counsel Robert Mueller was (again) interested in interviewing the president, now that his written responses have been submitted and, I'm sure, reviewed by in detail by the Mueller team.

CW: Has his office reached out to you about sitting own for an in-person interview with the president?

RG: Yes. There are several unpaid parking tickets that night -- back in 1986, 1987 that haven't been explained. You know, we've got to --

CW:Seriously?

RG: Seriously, unpaid parking tickets-- 

CW: No, no no 

RG: it was a movie theater. He didn't pay the proper fee.

CW:  Is the special counsel -- does he want to interview the president?

RG:  Yes, good luck. Good luck. After what they did to Flynn, the way the trapped him into perjury and no sentence for him, 14 days for Papadopoulos. I did better on traffic violations than they did with Papadopoulos.

CW: So, when you say good luck, you're saying no way, no interview?

RG:  They're a joke. Over my dead body, but you know, I could be dead. 

CW: Do they want to speak to the president?

RG: I do have -- I do have other lawyers - I am disgusted with the tactics they have used in this case. What they did to General Flynn should result in discipline. They're the ones who are violating the law. They're looking at non-crime collusion, the other guys are looking at non-crime campaign violations, which are not violations. And they are the ones who are violating the law, the rules, the ethics and nobody wants to look at them. They destroyed Strzok & Page's text, 19,000 texts.

If he had destroyed 19,000 texts, they'd put him in jail

Even though they can't because he's the president. 

Got that? Parking tickets, movie theaters, and talking to Mueller "over my dead body."

Now, let's see what he said in his discussion on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.  It started with George playing video of an interview in which Michael Cohen said he acted at the direction of the president, that the payments to the porn star and Playboy bunny were made to help the campaign, and that Cohen gave loyalty to a man who did not deserve a bit of it.

Giuliani's' approach was to attack Cohen as pathetic, a liar, a many who lied under oath repeatedly, a man who can't be trusted.  Even though the Southern District of NY believes Cohen, and Stephanopoulos pointed out they'd not state what they did without corroborating evidence, Giuliani was not having it.

RG: Yes, but there'd be no way they would know other than taking Cohen's word for it. I mean, the conversations they had, even the tape recorded conversation that we listened to is just the two of them.. they don't have corroborating evidence, I'm sure. They don't have corroborating evidence,. Plus they didn't let Cohen plead guilty to a conspiracy. I ran that office, I know what they do. If I'm going to use a cooperator, I make them plead guilty to a conspiracy...

Stephanopoulos talked about the deal that was cut with David Pecker and AMI (the National Enquirer folks) who helped identify and bury stories and keep them from being published  and who agreed to keep Cohen in the loop. Still, Giuliani was not convinced.

GS: But you just said you ran that office. You know how the Southern District is run. You know exactly how the Southern District is run.

RG: No, I don't know -- actually, I don't know how the Southern District --

GS: They wouldn't have put that in the statement of fact if they didn't believe --

RG: I'm disgusted with the Southern District. I'm going to tell you another things. You see what we're talking about? It's not a crime. It's not a crime...

Which of course is consistent with everything that the Trump team eventually says - by the third of fourth or fifth version of the story, they end up telling us some version of 'even if it did happen, it wasn't a crime.'  The two argued back and forth about whether the payoffs were made to help or protect the campaign (what the filing says), or whether they were made to protect Trump's wife and children (Rudy's answer).

Stephanopoulos asked if there were other payments.

RG: Nobody else asked for -- in the past, I can't speak to. I wasn't his lawyer in the past. But at that point, these were the only two that were asking for money. And the amount of money is consistent with harassment, not truth. I have been involved in cases like this. When it's true and you have the kind of money the president had, it's a $1 million settlement. When it's not true, when it's a harassment settlement and it's not true, you give them $130,000, $150,000. They went away for so little money that it indicates their case was very very weak.

He complained that next it would be parking tickets and jay-walking - those must have been the predetermined speaking points. And then he compared these non-crimes to Obama FEC violations, mischaracterizing the nature of the violation and wildly overstating the fines paid, but you know, what's a lie when you're a liar defending a liar by complaining about a liar? Here's the best line of that segment, about the reporting violations which Obama's campaign admitted to.

No, they were not reporting violations. He has people who donated to him that don't exist. They do not exist. They're not human beings.

On it went, for a while, until Stephanopoulos changed the topic.

GS: CNN and the NY Times reporting this week that you're still in discussion with Robert Mueller about whether the - about an interview with the president, are those discussions still going on?

RG: I'm actually not allowed to -- to say that. But -- but the agreement we had did contemplate that there'd be a period of time after the questions that we would have a discussion about whether there should be any further questions. So I'm not saying we are or we aren't but that's in the agreement.  

I love the distinctly different response to the question about whether the president will have a sit-down with the Mueller team.  I mean, we go from "over my dead body" to "I'm not allowed to say that."

Clearly, Rudy knows which audience he's talking to when he has his little chats, would you agree?

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.

Wondering on Wednesday (v183)

I don't know about you, but I'd say 'WoW' sure fits today.

Right off the bat, we've got an unhinged Rudy Giuliani doing an interview with Fox and Friends that would have left the hosts slack-jawed had they not been clenching their teeth to keep their mouths from allowing huge peals of laughter to spill forth. I wonder how they managed to do that? I mean, there were several times when I literally (not just Joe Biden literally) laughed out loud listening to Rudy. Do you think they practiced the stone-faced look while watching his interview with Chris Cuomo?

And next batter up, we've got the Official Readout of president Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky, which is widely being referred to as "the transcript" by most people. And what does the readout say?  Let's take a look; and yes, I've taken the liberty of bolding parts of the conversation if you want to skim.

Zelensky was very complimentary to Trump, saying he learned a lot from him on how to run a campaign, and he'd like to keep running so he can keep talking to Trump; he even mentioned 'draining the swamp' in his country.

Trump, as you might imagine, lapped all of that up. And then, he got down to business. For anyone who looks at this and says there's nothing threatening here, I would strongly disagree.

...I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. 

Got it? You're a former comedian, reality star guy who ends up president, talking to a guy who has to be your idol, and you're not supposed to get a message from that?

Zelensky does get the message, saying Trump is not just 100% correct, but 1000% correct, and how the European Union should be doing more but the US is technically the bigger partner. And he expressed that they were "almost ready" to purchase more weapons from us, which of course is literally music to Trump's ears - nothing more important than selling our weapons to foreign countries, right?

And then Trump said this:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I  would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance- but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. 

I want you to find out what happened, I'll have my people call your people, I would like you to get to the bottom of it...  Trump didn't come right out and say, yeah, maybe those arms sales won't be happening, and he didn't mention the hundreds of millions in aid that he ordered held up, but did he really have to?

Zelensky confirms his understanding, like a gambler would when threatened with collection action by his bookie.

Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine.

He talks about getting a new ambassador to the US, noting he's looking to see "trust and confidence" on Trump's part here, to allow for "cooperation even more so." And then, he tells Trump, hey - we're already dealing with your people on this stuff, and you're among friends - and provides additional reassurance that the message has been received.

I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once  he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us... I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you. 

Trump comes back with a strong second serve, getting the Bidens into the mix. He also plays up the importance of this piece of the puzzle, even though everyone - the US government, the IMF, the EU - agrees it did not happen the way Trump presents it.

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

Zelensky allows as how since he holds the parliament the new prosecutor will be "100% my person" and will start in September and will look into things, "specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue." And then, knowingly or not, he invites the conspiracy theorists into the mix.

... I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country.

He also thanks Trump for tipping him off to the previous ambassador being bad. Trump reiterates he'll have his people get in touch with Zelensky, and then dangles a carrot.

Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.  I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, they're incredible people.

You found the carrot, right, about the economy getting better? Is that just going to happen organically, or are we going to be player in that, I wonder? Bet Zelensky knows the answer, depending of course on how those investigations go.

The Ukrainian then adds another dose of flattery, saying he stayed at Trump Tower the last time he came to New York, and then he did exactly what someone under 'no pressure whatsoever' would do - he promises again to take care of business, and then tosses out his own carrot, which was well played. I guess he has been studying the Trump playbook.

I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also wanted to (assure) you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful (in) cooperating on energy independence with the United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

Happy that his message was received, Trump's ready to wrap things up, but not without mentioning yet again Rudy and Barr.

Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

Zelensky must have missed the cue that the call was over, now that he had committed to doing what Trump wanted. Suggesting they get together in Ukraine after a meeting in Poland, he says

We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

I love that last part: you've got a better plane, let's take yours. He's still got a bit of the comedian in him, don't you think? And maybe he was trying to let Trump he had nothing to worry about?

But on the important stuff:

• Don't wonder whether this was a shakedown: it was.
• Don't wonder whether this was inappropriate: it was.
• Don't wonder whether this was ethical: it was not.
• Don't wonder whether this was a normal conversation: it wasn't.
• Don't wonder whether there was pressure on Ukraine: there was.

And don't wonder whether a quid pro quo was on the table: There was.  It wasn't directly expressed (do this or we won't sell arms to you, for example) but there is certainly an implied quid pro quo in Trump's comments:

• we're good to you, better than Europe, but you're not reciprocating.
• You do me a favor or two, and I predict your economy is going to start doing much better.
• It's very important that you look in to these issues.
• Speak to my personal attorney, that would be great, speak to the Attorney General, that would be great, that would be appreciated. Talk to them, and you can come visit me any time.

There was clear understanding that Zelensky had received the message, whether he recognizes or  admits he was being pressured on the call or not. After all, how can he say no to his country's biggest supporter, the country that protects him, the country with a petulant, retaliatory child sitting in the president's chair? 

A nothingburger? Who knew Trump could be so nice?  Everyone can wonder how those two statement can be associated with this call. 

Wondering on Wednesday 6/29/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

The wondering is wandering today. 

I wonder why so many people think that a House committee investigation is a trial, and that a hearing room at the Capitol is the same as a courtroom? 

And why would anyone who managed the House Judiciary Committee GOP cabal's Twitter feed would think that everything Cassidy Hutchinson said yesterday - the entirety of her testimony - was hearsay? I wonder if it's because Rep. Jim (Who's Going to Play Me in Clooney's Documentary?) Jordan is the goofball behind the keyboard?

Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 

So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th Committee. And I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

Happily, I'm able to report that Andrew Giuliani was not successful in his bid to become the Republican nominee for governor of NY, not that I wondered a whole lot about the possibility of him winning the primary. Truth be told, I spent zero time on that. 

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

Incumbent Gov. Kathy Hochul, who took over after the Sonofa Gov's fall from grace last year, easily won the Democratic primary. Hochul won every county in the state, most of them easily, over runner-up Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi, who finished a distant third. 

On the Republican side, Rep. Lee Zeldin cruised to victory over Giuliani, 2014 nominee Rob Astorino, and 'turn-around expert' Harry Wilson. I don't think any of the Rs ran a good race, really - and we never heard much at all from Williams and Suozzi. It almost felt like the Rs ran upstate and the Ds ran downstate. 

So, what's the wondering on our election results? Now that the campaign will start in earnest, how bad are things going to get, advertising-wise? Hochul's raised over $34M so far, with a goal of raising $50M-$70M by Election Day. That's a whole lot of money for a whole lot of ads, to go along with a whole lot of bill-signing still to come, I'm sure. And Zeldin? He claims over $11.5M in 'pre-primary' fundraising, so we'll be seeing a lot of him I'm sure, too. He certainly wasn't shy with his ads during the primary, and I don't think that'll change. 

Early voting turnout was "anemic" in New York City, with fewer than 90,000 people taking advantage of the opportunity, out of some 3,600,000 registered voters. Not sure how that amount of apathy will impact what happens in August, or November, but it does make me wonder if we really needed to have several days of early voting in New York.

In New York, R Kelly was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his decades of sexual trafficking and racketeering; he faces additional charges in Illinois and Minnesota. My only wondering here is if any of his victims will ever feel safe and whole again. 

And finally, I'm going to drop a blanket wondering: what the heck's going on with the Supreme Court and their recent decisions, and did anyone really see all of these coming?

What's on your wondering minds tonight?

Sunday School 4/28/19

OK, let's see how much ground we can cover today, starting with Andrea Mitchell sitting in for Chuck Todd on NBC's  Meet the Press.  On the show were presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and former Deputy AG Sally Yates, who was fired by the Trump administration. We'll start there.

Mitchell asked what Yates thought about Trump calling the FBI "scum" at his rally in Wisconsin last night. Yates said those were "words we shouldn't be throwing around" about our law enforcement and intelligence folks. Mitchell also asked about the Mueller Report and whether it exonerated the president.

... I think it paints a devastating portrait of a president and a campaign who welcomed a foreign adversary's illegal interference into our election, who then continually lied about it and then used the power of the presidency to try and thwart an investigation into his own conduct. That's not exoneration.

And whether she thought there would have been an indictment on obstruction, absent the "sitting president can't be indicted" position, and whether Trump would have been indicted on the ten obstruction charges if he was just a regular guy? Yates said she's prosecuted obstruction on less evidence, but all ten scenarios might not be prosecutable, just the ones where Mueller found no "significant factual or legal defenses."

Yates pointed out that Mueller "specifically references" the possibility of prosecution after Trump is out of office, but there's a bigger issue, she noted. It's about presidential conduct.

I mean, when the Russians came knocking at their door, you would expect that a man who likes to make a show of hugging the flag would have done the patriotic thing and notified law enforcement. 

And about Rudy Giuliani's comment that there's nothing wrong with taking help from a foreign adversary?

Yeah, that's a shocking statement. And it also just reflects how they have moved the goalpost, when the truth comes out...Surely, that's not what we've come to. 

Sen. Johnson said he personally wouldn't welcome support from the Russians, even given Giuliani's comments. And on the FBI scum comment?  Johnson spent a lot of time talking about "understanding the president's frustration" before finally saying "Probably, I would use different words."

Sen. Klobuchar was asked about obstruction; she supports Congressional subpoenas for administration officials and is looking forward to questioning AG Bill Barr this week. Mitchell wondered if, as a candidate, the senator should say whether or not the impeachment process should be started. Klobuchar noted that the House will make that decision; her interest is in holding Trump  accountable, and citing the Mueller report, noted there are many ways to do that:

One is with the process through Congress, which includes these investigations, which the president is already stonewalling. The second is other investigations that are going on right now, including in New York. And the third is pretty straightforward, Andrea. That is defeating him in 2020. And that's what I intend to do and will do.

Asked about what Joe Biden should say to Anita Hill, who apparently is not happy with her recent conversation with him, Klobuchar correctly noted that was Biden's question to answer. If enough of the candidates not named Biden give that answer, maybe the medial will stop asking them the question. 

There's always hope.

Wondering on Wednesday (v172)

It's almost too easy this week to wonder about stuff.

For example:

I wonder (but only for the briefest of seconds, because I know the answer already) whether we'd be having any conversation at all about fetal heartbeats and 'personhood' if men were the ones who got pregnant? Or about limiting access to any kind of medical care, including contraception?

Seriously: if men had periods, free tampon dispensers would be on every corner in America, bar none. Probably two or three on every corner in Alabama and Georgia. And birth control? They'd write a law that the costs are 200% reimbursable, without needing a single receipt.

And I wonder what will happen when the first person claims a pre-born person as a dependent on their taxes?  Will 'personhood' still be the rule, or will only post-birth personhood matter then?

Or, what about this: If Joe Biden was not leading in the meaningless early 2020 polls, I wonder if Donald Trump would be worrying about what did or didn't happen in Ukraine back in the day?  And what happens to the next person who takes the lead in the polls? Will we see another mysterious Rudy Giuliani travel itinerary and related interviews?

And, I wonder, why hasn't Giuliani been required to register as a foreign lobbyist?

And isn't it funny that this president, having just come from a two-year HOAX! Witch Hunt! investigation about Russia interfering in our elections (which did happen - everyone knows that, including Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, Robert Mueller, the entire US Congress, the entire United States intelligence and justice communities and even the 400-pound guy in the basement) would immediately consider asking a foreign government to interfere in our next election?

How can we do anything but wonder what the hell is wrong with him and with every single person in his administration who either didn't try to stop him, or tried, failed, and continues to work for him?

And what the heck is up with Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, actively telling an American citizen to ignore a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee? Has he lost his mind?  Can we sink any lower, I wonder? (Don't answer that...)

Here's one I got in my inbox today: three Florida radio stations will be broadcasting clips of Trump speeches. At least once. Maybe twice. Every hour. Every day. Until the 2020 election.

Now, the article I linked above says the stations will meet all FCC requirements and offer the same opportunity to any Democratic candidates who ask for equal time, so I'm not going to wonder about that.

But what I am wondering is, how long will it take for every single Democratic candidate - all 22 of them - to request free air time?  It shouldn't take longer than a NY minute if you ask me.

It wouldn't even matter if they all ran exactly the same ad, or better yet, if they all played other clips,  from Trump's speeches and tweets - you know, the ones about Judge Curiel, or the shit hole countries, the attacks on John McCain, his slamming of the Khan family --  and who could forget the Access Hollywood tape? Or maybe talking about all of the lawsuits, all of the failed businesses, about Mexico paying for the wall -- I mean, this stuff is a gold mine!

That would make for great political theater - and it would all be free! And remember: At least once. Maybe twice. Every hour. Every day. Until the 2020 election.

And even that Sanders fella, who is still not a Democrat, should ask for free air time, too.

In Case You Missed It (v96)

It was another slow week for writing here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of the three posts that made it out the door.

Nothing really caught my eye in the classroom, so I didn't make you work for Sunday School or Extra Credit. I did, however, tempt you with another chapter in the Journal of Unpopular Opinions about the SCOTUS decision to give the decision on the legality of abortion to the states. And where many people have been posting RBG memes, I posted an article quoting her saying that Roe was the right decision for the wrong reason. It's not a privacy issue, it's an equality issue. 

There's also a lot about it that's discriminatory; I gave some examples, including these:

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

The unpopular ones? You can read those in the post. 

I didn't publish again until it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, which was after both Cassidy Hutchinson's in-person testimony before the January 6th Committee, and my home state's gubernatorial primary. 

Here's a bit of wondering on the former, in response to the seeming millions of Trumpworld denizens who've added expertise in all matters judicial to their already-impressive resumes, which include expertise in infectious diseases, immigration, foreign policy, economics, hamberders, golf, taxes, health insurance and more.

Hearsay - or 'Hear-Say' or 'Hear Say' or 'stuff she made up that people didn't say' - you pick - was a big topic in the Interwebs, and it got me wondering.

Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 

So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th Committee. And I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

On the latter, the candidates leading in the polls won, pretty easily, in both the D and R primaries. Which means that Andrew Giuliani, did not win. He did win most of the NYC vote, which is fine - he can go back there and not interrupt me here in that vast expanse called Upstate New York. He did prompt some wondering, though.

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

And, before you know it, I turned 64, it turned July, and it was time to make the TGIF lists. In addition to SCOTUS shenanigans, and insurrection insights, there was some Biden bluster that needed to be added to a list.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement  on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

See you later - I've got a couple of drafts I hope to get out of purgatory, and I'll give Sunday School a shot as well. 

TGIF 10/25/19

It's that time again folks...

Ready... Set... Go!

Bad weeks were had by:

• House Freedom Caucus members, who orgasmically 'stormed' the Secure Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, in the basement of the Capitol. Their breathless assault on a room where depositions are being taken in the House impeachment inquiry in front of both Democrats AND Republicans was laughable - at best - and it was played out for an audience not of their constituents, but for an audience of one. They know that, and we know that - everyone knows that. 
• Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who was found to be in contempt by a federal judge (in addition to having been found to be in contempt by millions of Americans) and was fined $100,000. Some say the fine was too low, given her resources, but at least someone in a position to do so took a stand. 
• The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, after a bunch of federal watchdogs said the decision to stop the whistleblower complaint in Trump's impeachment inquiry from getting to Congress was wrong, and not only that, it "could seriously undermine the critical role whistleblowers play in coming forward to report fraud, waste, abuse and misconduct across the federal government."
• And, let's add Rudy Giuliani to the list this week - not for the usual reasons, such as a wacky TV appearance, assault and battery on sentence structure and logical thought, or any of that. Nah -- this time, it's because the founder of Giuliani Security & Safety, which "offers corporations, individuals, and governments a full platform of security, investigative and crisis management services" managed to butt-dial a reporter and leave a voicemail - for the second time in less than three weeks. 
• Democratic presidential candidates; it seems several Dem money bigwigs are unhappy with the choices they have, and might be trying to get others into the race. 

And now, on to the good week, with a World Series focus. My team is spending the off-season trying to figure out what to do next year, but it's still fun to pay attention to the Fall Classic.

• The Washington Nationals are up two games to none, as I write this, against the Houston Astros. That's probably surprising to most experts, it seems, who tended to pick the Houstonians. Sadly, this is also good news for the Baby Shark song.
• Super gymnast Simone Biles had a flippin' good week, too, as she busted a move before throwing out the ceremonial first pitch in Game 2.
• And women had at least a bit of a good week. Astros' assistant general manager Brandon Taubman was fired after repeatedly shouting at three female reporters how "(bleeping) glad" he was that the Astros had picked up Roberto Osuna before the playoffs. Osuna was the third player suspended by MLB for violating the league's domestic violence policy.  

Here's to some good baseball, a clean series, and hopefully, a first win for the Nats.

Oh -- one last thing: hey, Freedom Caucus - you KNOW it's a bad week when even Russia is laughing at you.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 4/28/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

In no particular order, here's tonight's wondering.

The police bodycam videos in the shooting of Andrew Brown, Jr. in Elizabeth City, NC won't be shared with the public right now, although edited versions will be shared with Brown's family, supplementing the 20 seconds they've already seen. According to judge Jeffery Foster, the media organizations which had requested the video "did not have standing to petition for release, and that the public release could harm the reputation or safety of the deputies depicted in it and affect the state's investigation."  

I wonder then, if releasing the videos would "affect the state's investigation," why is the district attorney releasing details of the investigation himself, to counter comments made by the family's attorney?  

I wonder why they are not allowing all members of the House and Senate to attend the president's address tonight?  I would certainly allow anyone who's been fully vaccinated (meaning, two weeks past their final shot, whether it's a two-shot regimen or the one-shot version).  And, I wonder how they decided who gets to be among the 200 or so who attend? And finally, I wonder, will Fox have a camera glued to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's face, to see what she thinks of Biden's speech?

I wonder, who are the people who particpate in the surveys on Family Feud?

Andrew Giuliani, former Special Assistant Because of His Last Name to Former Guy, was getting all kinds of hot and bothered talking to the press about the search warrants executed at his father Rudy's home and office. Among his comments? "If this can happen to the president's lawyer, this can happen to any of us." I wonder if he realizes how silly he sounds? Honestly, if this can happen to any of us, it can happen to the president's lawyer, too. That's the way it's supposed to work in America. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom will face a recall, barring a miracle that results in the tossing of a whole boatload of signatures on the petition. Among the candidates hoping to replace him? A police officer-turned-insurance broker, a familiar sight on billboards, a former adult film star, a senior pastor, and former Olympian and reality TV star. 

There's a former mayor, too - but sadly, not a sonofa former mayor. I'm wondering if we could send them Andrew Giuliani, to keep him out of the race here in NY?

Beyond this, I'm wondering about the Biden speech, and Sen. Tim Scott's response, and the punditry jibberjabber, which we can talk about later.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Last night on the  PBS News Hour, Gwen Ifill spoke with Tamara Keith of NPR and Susan Page, the Washington bureau chief of USA Today, about Hillary Clinton's pneumonia, the "basket of deplorables" comment Clinton made at a fundraiser, and about two related Trump scandals: his $25,000 bribe of the Florida Attorney General to encourage her to not join an action against Trump University, and about his propensity to donate other people's money and take credit for it.

Discussion on the health issue were standard issue -- why didn't she come clean last week when she was diagnosed, why won't she tell us everything under the sun that we need to do, and, oh yeah, there was that little mention of Donald Trump and Clinton's health.  Here's Tamara Keith (emphasis added):

There was already a lot circulating about her health that was completely unsubstantiated, a lot of rumors, conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump talking about her stamina. So this was floating in the ether, when yesterday at the 9/11 commemoration she faltered as she  was leaving...

Note the emphasis: completely unsubstantiated, rumors, conspiracy theories and Donald Trump, who merely had to raise the question in a speech for it to become an issue, that he wondered whether Clinton had the stamina to be president. As if she herself would be charging into battle to fight the issues facing our country. Trump drove the point home in mid-August, at his 'major foreign policy address' when he read this off the teleprompter:

Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS and all of the many adversaries we face, not only in terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn our great country around. 

So now it's September, and she's had some allergy-related coughs, laughingly telling people she was allergic to Donald Trump.  And then the 9/11 commemoration happened, and all media hell broke loose. For several hours, the press knew not where Clinton was, why she had left the remembrance ceremony, or what was wrong.  Later, (again, NPR's Tamara Keith):

It was the end of the day (after 5:30 PM) when the doctor, her doctor, released a statement saying she was overheated, dehydrated, and oh, by the way, on Friday, three days earlier, was diagnosed with pneumonia and they hadn't told anyone about that before. 

Gwen Ifill tries to get some discussion going on what we, and by "we" I mean the media and the talking heads, are really concerned about.

Ifill: Well, that's the point Susan. Was this really about -  is our concern really about her health or is it about the fact of the failure to disclose in a timely fashion?

Page: I think both things are issues. I think she will now need to come out and show that she's healthy and vigorous and has stamina.  She has -- the fact that she was diagnosed with pneumonia, and we didn't know about it, and had this incident caught on a video has legitimized some of the critiques that Trump and Rudy Giuliani in particular have been making that she's -- that there's some question about her health.  

Ifill: Donald Trump, who has not released his...

 Page: His own health records.. That's right.

Ifill: OK, just to make that point.

Page: Yes, absolutely.  But I think her failure to disclose it is also an issue. And it goes to a different vulnerability she has, which is, is she straightforward with the Americans whose votes she wants to get?

Ifill:  And they say there is a higher standard for the woman candidate. That's what the Clinton people say.

Keith: Yes. They do. They do say that. And they say they are going to meet that higher standard.... But there was a tweet today from David Axelrod, the adviser to President Obama back when he was running for President, that really sums up what Susan is talking about. He says "Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?"

A bug planted about Clinton's stamina, which Trump had been pushing since June, similar to his 'low energy' attack on Jeb! Bush. A higher standard for the female candidate, which the reporters talk about as if it doesn't exist. Completely unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, promoted by Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, being 'legitimized' because Hillary Clinton didn't tell anyone that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia.

The bottom line is that there surely is a higher standard for the woman candidate - and that's magnified because it's Hillary Clinton. She must be smart but not too smart. Kind but not too kind or she'll appear fake. Empathetic, but not too empathetic or she'll be seen as using people to get votes. She must be personable, and bake cookies. She must be energetic and fiery but not sound harsh and or shrill or show emotion. She must be strong, but she can't be too strong.

She must never make a misstep, whether that's an actual misstep, or a fashion faux pas or a verbal scuff in a speech or, heaven forbid, have to pee - because those make the woman look unpresidential.

I agree with Axelrod that Clinton and/or her team of advisers repeatedly create unnecessary problems - I think that's been proven any number of times. But on this issue, she had two choices: tell, take time off, and be seen as weak, knowing that the media will mention over and over and over that "Trump said" she's not healthy enough to serve. Or, don't tell, and get through it as best you can, as long as nothing goes wrong. And know that something will go wrong.

Between a rock and a hard place, that's where she was. 

What would you have recommended she do about the pneumonia diagnosis? What would you have done in her shoes?

Trump in Transition (v38)

Wondering what to think about the Mueller Report? 

Wondering how the president is transitioning from investigation subject to investigation victim to maybe not having the best memory in the history of remembrances to brand stealing?

Have no fear, I'm here to help.  

Below are some comments from folks on the No Collusion! No Obstruction! Total Exoneration! Witch Hunt! side of the fence with some of my comments included.

Here are some of Attorney General William Barr's remarks:

...thanks to the Special Counsel's thorough investigation we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign - or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter.  That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. See comments below from VP Mike Pence, and let me know who you think Barr is talking about here -- is it all Americans, regardless of political affiliation? Or is it just the Americans who supported the president? I can hazard a guess, but I'm interested in what everyone else thinks. 

In assessing the president's actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. president Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates.

At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency. propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Note to those who are faced with charges of 'attempted' crimes: act angry, dammit. Don't let them think you're going to try and commit crimes for any specific reason - just be angry and talk about the meanies who are picking on you. Be Best, and all. It'll work for you.

 The Vice President released this statement, presumably with Mother's permission.

Today's release of the Special Counsel's report confirms what the President and I have said since day one: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and there was no obstruction of justice. The vice president must be referring to the highly subjective and beneficial comments of AG Bill Barr - because the Mueller report does not support these conclusions. Or, to make it easier, he's lying.

After two years of investigation, conducted with the full cooperation of this Administration, that involved hundreds of witness interviews and millions of pages of documents, the American people can see for themselves: no collusion, no obstruction. Not only are the vice president's conclusions inconsistent with those of the Mueller report, the '"full cooperation" was limited by the president's answers and by the fact that the Mueller team decided not to pursue a subpoena for a personal interview. I doubt that would have even been considered had there been "full cooperation" and left some decisions up to Congress. 

Now that the Special Counsel investigation is completed, the American people have a right to know whether the initial investigation was in keeping with long-standing Justice Department standards - or even lawful at all. We must never allow our justice system to be exploited in pursuit of a political agenda. Given that the report identifies a number of occasions on which the president attempted to obstruct the report but failed only because others in the White House failed to follow instructions. 

While many Democrats will cling to discredited allegations, the American people can be confident President Trump and I will continue to focus where we always have, on advancing an agenda that's making our nation stronger, safer, and more secure. Note the distinction between "Democrats" and "the American people," a distinction that's made fairly regularly by the president, vice president, and many others in the Administration.

The president himself offered these remarks:

I have no recollection. I do not recall. I do not recall. I do not recall. I have no recollection. I have no recollection. I do not recall. I have no recollection. I have no independent recollection. I do not recall. I have no recollection. I do not recall. I have no recollection. I do not recall. I have no recollection. I do not recall.  These are excerpts from the president's written responses, which, the Mueller report noted, "demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had had no opportunity to ask follow up questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client's recollection. Sitting for an in-person interview, you'll recall, was repeatedly referred to as a "perjury trap" by the president's attorneys, including Rudy Giuliani. And of course, don't forget that Giuliani suggested famously that "there was no collusion, but even if there was, it's not a crime..."

One more comment from the president, which is the most telling of all:

Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm f***ed.