« Brainstorming my Hugo nominations: Best Novel and Best Series | Main | The Stupidest Environment Imaginable - Open Thread »

March 16, 2018


I should perhaps note that I have no idea what Governor Rosselló's position is on any issues. Nor even what party he belongs to. It's the question of principle that got me.

But how about i and ı (Latin Small Dotless Letter I), which is used in Turkish? Would you notice? DID you notice, when I slipped it in in the first sentence? Nah, you probably saw what you expected to see.

Even after you admitted to your sneaky little trick, it took me 3 passes to find the dotless "i."

No caesarian born preznits, it's the way The Founders™ decreed.

IIRC, some of the unicode characters look *exactly* the same as their usual ascii counterparts, but have a different binary code.

Depends on the fonts and kerning, of course.

I confess I stole the idea from a paper I wrote tor the internal ICANN discussion of variants. Even on a panel composed mostly of trained linguists, nobody caught it until I mentioned that it was there to be found. The potential for confusion is obvious (I refer to it as "phishing enablement").

Happily, we seem to be winning out over those who (apparently for financial reasons) oppose any restrictions. That is, their company does domain name registrations. More confusion means more defensive registrations by companies. Or, if they don't, by criminals who find the opportunity irresistible. Who says conflicts of interest only happen in government?

I haven't seen anything identical to an ASCII character (a-z, 0-9). But in addition to things like the schwa and the "turned e" (both ə), there are a couple of diacritic marks, the breve ˘ and the caron ˇ which are actually different (one is a flat curve while the other is two straight lines meeting at a shallow angle), but are indistinguishable at normal font sizes. And there are several letters which, depending on the language, use both.

About 200 languages (thanks mostly to colonists and missionaries) and nearly 150 symbols. Fun times!

OK, a small correction. There are multiple languages which include a circle (o) or a vertical line (l). So those have multiple code points. And, of course, Latin, Cyrillic and Greek (and Armenian) are all descended from Phoenician, so they have some common letters as well.

Sometimes, even the Trump andministration gets something right on regulation:

With lower nicotine cigarettes, people may smoke more cigarettes to get their fix. And it's not the nicotine that's killing them.

...it took me 3 passes to find the dotless "i."

It took me more than that. After watching myself in action, it was obvious that I was scanning for the lowercase letter "i" by looking for the dot, and it was hard to stop that.

I've always been one of the people who score high on being able to read things that are intentionally garbled by keeping the first and last letter of the word in place while rearranging some of the interior letters: It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. My wife struggles with those. Human pattern recognition is peculiar.

it's not the nicotine that's killing them.

True. But it's the nicotine that's got them hooked. While those already hooked may just ramp up their consumption to keep getting their accustomed fix, it might reduce the number of new addicts by making it easier for them to quit.

I haven't seen anything identical to an ASCII character (a-z, 0-9).


let's see if this works.



More green shoots.

OK, cleek, educate me. Which characters were non-ASCII?

I've always been one of the people who score high on being able to read things that are intentionally garbled by keeping the first and last letter of the word in place while rearranging some of the interior letters:

Me, too. It barely slows my reading.

The flip side to that is that I sometimes garble unfamiliar names (of people, chemicals, places, etc.) that I've only read but haven't heard pronounced aloud. This can happen after reading - but only reading - a name multiple times, because I recognize it without really reading it.

If I try to come up with such a name in conversation, I'll likely have the internal letter sounds and/or syllables out of order. That usually then disciplines me to consciously read every letter and every syllable in their proper order the next time I see the name, which may happen very soon thereafter because I purposely sought the name out just to do that.

Before doing that, it's almost as though the name is a recognizable symbol rather than a word.

OK, cleek, educate me. Which characters were non-ASCII?

at least in Firefox, that 'а' is not an ASCII 'a'. it's a Cyrillic character.

Ah, that one. Happily, the rules will require that you not mix scripts within a segment of a name.

On the other hand, you can get something in Cyrillic that is .сом. Now as it happens, domain names are exclusively lower case, which this one is (the Cyrillic lower case of M is the same, only smaller). Browsers, for historical reasons, will convert ASCII upper case to lower case before sending it across the network. Which means that users have decades of experience teaching them that upper and lower case are interchangeable. So people would assume that this was Latin .COM, which is equivalent to the Latin .com that we all know and love.

There's a reason that we have spend a year on this, and probably have another 6 months to go!

Since it's an open thread, a pointer to a Henry Farrell post at Crooked Timber on speech and attention. Some snippets (but the whole thing isn't all that long...):

There are two versions of the problem. First – speech doesn’t scale, and at a certain point, the scarce resource isn’t speech but attention.


Second, speech is increasingly being weaponized to drown out inconvenient voices.


These are problems that liberalism (including strongly-left-democratic versions of liberalism) are poorly equipped to handle. We don’t have any good intellectual basis that I know of for deciding the appropriate ways to allocate attention, since we’ve only started to have that problem in the very recent past. We also don’t have good tools for muting the kinds of speech that have been weaponized to undermine conversation, while preserving the kinds of speech that conduct towards this.

This reminds me that ObWi used to have the "take it outside" site, which was abandoned a few years ago. I can't remember what it was actually called, but the address was hocb dot net ("Hating on Charles Bird" if I understand the history; it was before my earliest time here).

We could use something like that again...I would be willing to kick in toward the cost of domain registration or whatever, if people were interested.

Hereabouts one sometimes sees "No Entry" written on the road in white paint. Unfortunately for me, I can't quickly tell which way up it's written.

We could use something like that again

who are we going to hate on?

who are we going to hate on?

I would be happy to have it named in some other fashion. ;-)

Wasn't it actually called "Taking it Outside"?

Admittedly, having two sites to curate would mean more work for someone.....I'm thinking of the problems Henry Farrell lists.....which in fact we don't seem to have around here at the moment, unless someone is doing some yeoman work in the background that I don't know about.

No caesarian born preznits, it's the way The Founders™ decreed.

No Caesars is not the worst idea ever.

Wasn't it actually called "Taking it Outside"?

it was first called "Hating On Charles Bird" because the regulars got sick of the other regulars hating on C.B's posts, so they made a separate site where people could complain about him. eventually it got renamed to "Taking It Outside", but only after CB had left..

No Caesars is not the worst idea ever.

i recommend a strict 'No Little Caesars' diet.

Hating on Charles Bird and Taking It Outside were successors to Jackmormon's blog:


I miss her badly, but I miss the succeeding ghost shops as well, as a steam vent for OBWI, and I suspect Charles Bird does as well.

Jackmormon was a frequent commenter here as well..... for example, in this thread wherein a formerly notorious and but still reprehensible regular received some unwanted attention with seven types of ambiguity:


That guy and DaveC now share a walk up above a bait shop on a coast somewhere and one of them has no more to say about this off-kilter world, unfortunately, though there is something reminiscent of him in Marty's thrown voice.


Here's the part about Mussolini that Bannon should be fascinated with, as a preview:


Speaking of John Thullen, why was he and some others here so down on Larry Kudlow? He seems to be pretty rational compared to some of Trump's selections. And he has been in opposition to Trump in a number of things like being pro free market and immigration.

I once tracked down a weird bug to a results set ordering issue in a database.

The work had been outsourced to some Romanians. They created the database with a Cyrillic collation sequence. Because, Romanians.

Live and learn.


"Hoke repeatedly warned “no corporate fucking,” two other former employees told The Daily Beast."

What would the prosperity gospel be without ample corporate fucking?

In fact, one proof that corporations are people under Citizens United is their mutual propensity for seven types of fucking.

I'm sure the republican evangelical wing takes this as a head's up to bring Hoke, as with mp, into their flock, perhaps to host some kneeling prayer sessions at the cheap motel on the skirts of town for their more reluctant parishioners.

Still a Literary Genus as far as I can tell, and still crazy after all these years. Shine on, you crazy diamond...

Trump picking Kudlow is just so Trump.

you just know Trump picked him because Trump has spent years watching Kudlow pretend to be an economist on TV; and you know he's Trump's only exposure to the lingo actual economists use.

"I need a new financial guy."
"Who are you going to pick?"
"I don't know. What about that guy from TV? Kudlow. He seems smart. A real killer."


I can't speak for other guy, but this ....

"He seems to be pretty rational compared to some of Trump's selections."

... contains your answer.

Been watching Kudlow for 35 years. He is an additive personality. I'm glad he replaced the cock and alcohol, but not what with.

The other were gateway drugs to his tax ideology. He can't get enough hits of tax cuts and goes into withdrawal in their absence.

Supply side: will increase revenues to meet expenditure.

Whoops, deficits.

Well then, if we had cut spending like you cut coke with a little speed.

So cutting spending was the entire point? Tax cuts didn't increase federal tax receipts then?

Yes, No, and pass that bong.

Rinse, repeat, forever in a circle jerk.

He believes his own personal optimism, which he must have picked up in various 12-step programs over the years, desperately, to fill whatever that empty chasm is inside him, and expressing it like mantra on reality stock market shows, will cast a spell on the economic world and 2000 and 2007-8 will therefore not happen.

I'd sooner have Glenda the Good Witch serving as mp's economic spokesman.

I never listen to the pure optimists or the pure pessimists vis a vis the stock market. They seem pure believers, but they are just talking their grifting book.

He's a fucking fool, but granted, he's not Sebastian Gorka.


Probably not "cock", but the news cycle on Kudlow is young.

Apparently, the death of Nikolay Glushkov is now being treated as murder, death having occurred by "compression to the neck".

Comrade Glushkov fall into orange juicing machine nine times. is very tragic.

What about that guy from TV?

Who's gonna tell him that Jack Bauer is not available for National Security Advisor?

Trump picking Kudlow is just so Trump...

It's going to be cable TV personalities all the way down...

He seems to be pretty rational compared to some of Trump's selections.

(1) His training in economics is basically "on the job" rather than formal education and (2) he has a long history of being horribly wrong in his predictions.

Granted, coming from a systems analyst/modeling background, I had plenty of my own issues with economics as an academic discipline when I did the first year of a PhD program, so I won't fault him for (1). But that same background tells me that when you're wrong as often and badly in predictions as he has been, you have to recognize that there's something seriously wrong with your formal/mental models.

Quick! Get the actor who played Jack Bauer and hire him to play the part of National Security Advisor. Definitely an improvement over Bolton. And Trump doesn't grok the difference between reality and fiction, so that won't be an issue.

Plus he's probably had practice coping with irrational directors....

John "Yosemite Sam" Bolton. Appearance and attitude.

cleek, you remind me irresistibly of this marvellous exchange between J K Rowling and someone claiming to be Ana Davis of New York USA, with a stars and stripes next to her name:

Ana Davis: I'm easy going person. I am Donald Trump's Girl. I trust and believe in God doings. I love my conutry USA.

J K Rowling: I'm sceptical person in conutry Scotland who no trust in you doings.

Other celebrity show biz candidates I'd like to see considered for positions inside the White House and this Administration, and very close to mp.









Nuclear war, like Larry Kudlow, will seem a rational option as it engulfs America, as we deserve.

From Wikipedia:

A self-described "Reagan supply-sider", Kudlow opposes estate taxes, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains. He also advocates that employees be compelled to make greater contributions to their pension and medical costs, suggesting that these expenses are an undue burden on businesses and defends high executive compensation as a manifestation of market forces and opposes most forms of government regulation.


Kudlow firmly denied that the United States would enter a recession in 2007, or that it was in the midst of a recession in early to mid-2008. In December 2007, he wrote: "The recession debate is over. It's not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that's a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come".[15] In a May 2008 column entitled "'R' is for 'Right'", Kudlow wrote: "President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country".[16] By July 2008, Kudlow continued to deny that the economy was looking poor, insisting that "We are in a mental recession, not an actual recession."[12][17] Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, creating a full-blown international banking crisis.

Of course you would want this guy as an advisor! Who could be better?

John "Yosemite Sam" Bolton.

I'm not seeing Bolton as Yosemite Sam (real name: Samuel Michaelangelo Rosenbaum).

He seems more of a Colonel Blimp type, to me.

Yosemite Sam at least managed not to shoot himself (or anyone else) in the foot. Even while achieving liftoff. Cartoon characters who would be a step up on the bozos we've got. SAD!

That second Kudlow statement preceded his nasal septum dissolving.

"We are in a mental recession."

FDR considered W.C. Fields for the position of White House dentist on account of his celebrity playing one in the movies:


The entire country is going to need laughing gas, or whatever they are perfuming the air with in Syria.

He seems more of a Colonel Blimp type, to me.
But only the original cartoon version. The movie Blimp is a very different animal (inside at least).

I think we can now generalize from the particular about mp/republican bugs, just as conservatives do about EVERYONE else:



Larry Kudlow is Still an Idiot

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”

“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

turds of a feather

I've done some checking and Kudlow has held some idiot positions on economic policy from my point of view too. Such as advocating for various forms of the broken window facility.

My question on Kudlow is, Is there someone who Trump might conceivably have appointed, who would be better. I can think of some who would be worse. Some tariff enthusiasts for example. But better?

Not contesting, by the way, that he's massively unqualified. But that seems to be a given. But is there a real alternative who's better?

But is there a real alternative who's better?

Probably not. At this point in time, Trump appears to want a CEA chair who will bless arbitrary tariffs and tax cuts pay for themselves as appropriate policy. Unclear if the populist promises to preserve Social Security and Medicare benefits are valid or not. The list of candidates is short.

This week he seems to be headed for a national security staff willing to rattle sabers loudly in the direction of Iran and North Korea. If he (and Congress) install them, I worry that they will convince him at some point that it's time to start bombing, and the military will follow orders.

The Count does such fears better.

wj: My question on Kudlow is ..."

My question back atcha is: could the Dems nominate ANYONE in 2020 who would be worse than He, Trump?

The real alternative to Kudlow is ITMFA. The only way that happens is extermination (I'll settle for political extermination) of the so-called Grand Old Party. Vote Republicans out this year. Vote He, Trump (several times impeached, never convicted) out in 2020. Throw Putin's puppets in jail in 2021. Alternatively, you can pretend that the majority of Americans will sit still for government by a vicious, racist, Putin-ass-licking minority because "rule of law". The pretense may prove comforting, as long as it lasts.


But is there a real alternative who's better?

real, given that Trump himself is profoundly stupid and ridiculously unsuitable for the job he holds? no.

it's like asking if a Magic 8-Ball could have made a better prediction.

trump fires fbi deputy director andrew mccabe less than two days before his scheduled retirement date. it will probably cost mccabe some years of his pension.

just making another deposit in the big bank o' karma.

Thanks for the Crooked Timber link, JanieM; a very interesting post.

This is not a solution to the problem, but it is at the perhaps a gesture in the right direction:

Great interview with Michael McDonald on the BBC R5 Danny Baker show* this morning.

* A mix of popular culture and unabashed enthusiasm for the relentlessly trivial. A regular Saturday morning delight.

just making another deposit in the big bank o' karma.

and Tillerson was making a deposit of his own.

A very well argued piece about extremely obvious bias


By Robert Wright, not Glenn.

Thanks, Donald.

hard to argue with that. the NYT's biases are deep and they are legion.

good piece, Donald.

FWIW, I do not read the NYT, and have not done since the Bill Keller days. I don't expect news organs to be totally objective. I assume they will have a point of view, as a corporate (small 'c') institution.

What I do expect is that they will at least attempt to be thorough and fact-based. The NYT has failed in that on too many occasions, and occasions that were too consequential, for me to give them my attention.

Beautiful writers, but there are other and IMO better sources of information.


Excellent piece, Donald, thank you.

Thanks, Nigel. I hope those law suits not only succeed but get treble damages. (Maybe someone with more knowledge of the law than I can explain when and why trable damages apply. I just like the sound of it, and think that the more it hurts these jerks the better.)

The article also says that this kind of response is "too slow." I don't think I agree. We are dealing here with a significant change in our society: easy wide dissemination of falsehoods as well as information. Not surprisingly, it's going to take us a while to work out how to constrain/control the bad actors. (I would suggest that, as an add-on, suits be brought against those companies which sponsor shows which routinely spread falsehoods masquerading as news.)

cue the cries of "we're not news, we're entertainment".

trump fires fbi deputy director andrew mccabe less than two days before his scheduled retirement date. it will probably cost mccabe some years of his pension.

just making another deposit in the big bank o' karma.

What I find interesting here is that, if memory serves**, McCabe's actions in 2016 were far more damaging to Clinton than to Trump. Yet liberals seem to be taking his side in this. Instead of recognizing this as just another example of Trump welshing on his debts.

So yes, another deposit in the karma bank. But into a different accounting category.

** And I realize it may be playing tricks on me.

Yet liberals seem to be taking his side in this.

liberals seem to be taking the side of "Trump continues to act like someone who has no idea what he's doing and is just thrashing about aimlessly"

I'm just thinking that there are lots of better examples out there to talk about. It's not like Trump doesn't provide a wealth of them.

So the Cambridge Analytica chickens start coming home to roost. And yet, as is the case with Russia, I feel pessimistic that they, or anybody else, will ever actually be held accountable.

Channel 4 News: What did Steve Bannon want from you?

The CA Whistleblower: Steve Bannon wanted weapons to use in the culture war.

Channel 4 News: And what did you do for him?

CAW: We gave him the weapons [data from 50 million FB profiles, none of whom knew this was being done] and he changed the culture of America.

What I find interesting here is that, if memory serves**, McCabe's actions in 2016 were far more damaging to Clinton than to Trump.

What I find I refreshing is, imo, the only way to criticize this is if you believe that the DOJ IG and the FBI disciplinary office folks are mistaken.

Neither of those groups are particularly beholden to Trump and both recommended termination.

One of the benefits, again IMO, of all this investigative fury is that no one is really exempted from it.

For all the people who believe Trump should be impeached, I would say that if he is guilty of something that ratipnal minds believe is impeachable, not just criminal, I'm all for it. But I think McCabe, Comey, Clinton et al should stand the same test.

Rational people should decide to what level their indiscretions rise and they should be treated accordingly.

No regular on this blog, including me, has a rational enough perspective to be making those decisions imo.

So I'll go with the IG and Mueller as identifiable proxies.

The House Intelligence Committee, neither side, qualifies for me.

McCabe's actions in 2016 were far more damaging to Clinton than to Trump.

McCabe has backed up Comey's story regarding his (Comey's) firing. Which, in turn, is probably right at the top of the list of things which arguably constitute obstruction.

So, McCabe must be deligitimized. Or at least pissed on and bullied.

Yet liberals seem to be taking his side in this.

It's quite possible that McCabe deserved firing. I don't know the details. I cite the case as an example of Trump being a bully and a colossal dick.

But you are correct, there is no shortage of those.

As a possibly interesting aside, my understanding, which may be incorrect, is that if McCabe sues for his pension, it may make Trump and Sessions subject to discovery.


If Trump actually does go down, IMO the most likely cause will be an own-goal on his part, prompted by his own vanity and sense of entitlement. The man just cannot shut his big fat mouth, or forgo any opportunity to stick it to anyone he thinks he can push around. He's a bully, a coward, and a vainglorious ass.

You can run, but you can't hide from who you are.

Trump screwed up. He put himself in a position where he has an adversary he can't buy, and who can afford more, and better, attorneys than he can.


An interesting choice of divorce lawyer...

Neither of those groups are particularly beholden to Trump and both recommended termination.

And both, absent Trump's personal interference, were happy to let the man retire on schedule.

So I'll go with the IG and Mueller as identifiable proxies.

Works for me.

t may make Trump and Sessions subject to discovery.

And if there's anything that Trump (with reason) fears, it's discovery. And Trump's ability, penchant even, for shooting himself in the foot surfaces again.

"And both, absent Trump's personal interference, were happy to let the man retire on schedule."

I suspect neither were happy one way or the other, a recommendation of termination assumes someone else will act, or not. They could have recommended lesser sanction, but they didn't.

They weren't in a position to do the actual firing so the recommendation is the only indication of their viee.

And that recurring favorite, the Memo To The File, surfaces again

Marcy Wheeler on McCabe.

He, Trump's penchant for shooting himself in the foot is matched only by Marty's propensity to spray Febreeze over the stink of gunpowder.

BTW, whose word are we taking for what the IG report has to say -- about McCabe or anything else?

ITMFA. Make America Decent Again.


That Marcy Wheeler piece is very interesting, russell, and seems sober and grown up. I hadn't heard of her before, I don't think, but she's clearly a voice worth checking in with.

Her latest piece, on the Cambridge Analytica story, is excellent too. I'm so pleased that she (and Channel 4) are giving Carol Cadwalladr credit for much of this stuff: some of you may remember that I went through a phase of risking boring the arses off the ObWi commentariat with Cadwalladr's long weekly updates on this story in the Observer. It all seemed to have gone quiet for a long time, I'm so glad it seems to finally be gaining traction again.


For anyone interested, here's the Cadwalladr piece which broke the whistleblower stuff, and so all the new action:


OK, I'll try not to go on too much about this, and make this my last comment, but for anyone hesitating to read it, OMG the Cadwalladr piece is so fascinating. This whistleblower (actually one of the intellectual architects of the whole thing) is astonishing, and so interesting on Bannon, and to some extent the Mercers.

“The thing I think about all the time is, what if I’d taken a job at Deloitte instead? They offered me one. I just think if I’d taken literally any other job, Cambridge Analytica wouldn’t exist. You have no idea how much I brood on this.”

A few months later, in autumn 2013, Wylie met Steve Bannon. At the time, he was editor-in-chief of Breitbart, which he had brought to Britain to support his friend Nigel Farage in his mission to take Britain out of the European Union.

What was he like?

“Smart,” says Wylie. “Interesting. Really interested in ideas. He’s the only straight man I’ve ever talked to about intersectional feminist theory. He saw its relevance straightaway to the oppressions that conservative, young white men feel.”

And not only conservative, young white men, if McKinney's reaction is anything to go by.

The issue regarding McCabe is less about the merits of his firing, and more about the norms regarding Trump's treatment of a career civil servant.
On this count, Marcy Wheeler handwaves away the problem. Jeffrey Toobin's take makes more sense to me.

And, yes, the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook story is pivotal in putting together the pieces of the Russia conspiracy. I was struck by this comment responding to Wheeler on that subject.

And another piece getting to the heart of why McCabe's firing shouldn't be countenanced.

The issue regarding McCabe is less about the merits of his firing, and more about the norms regarding Trump's treatment of a career civil servant.

thank you.

and,i would add, his motivation for doing so.

Lawfare on McCabe.

The reason that Marty and I can both agree to leave the resolution of this great big ball of crap in the hands of Mueller, and feel reasonably comfortable doing so, is because *relatively speaking* the FBI and the federal law enforcement and criminal justice systems are, *in general*, mostly free of nakedly political motivation and agenda.

They certainly tend to align with certain points of view, but their motivation doesn't seem to be purely the advancement of those points of view. In general, they mostly play by the rules.

It is more than hard, it is impossible to overstate the value of that. Absent institutions like that, it's every man for himself.

Trump is breaking that. That's why it's bad.

my last comment for tonight:

art immelman's ontological lapseometer is not fiction, but a reality.

its name is facebook.

More about Trump and the civil service.

The people who value the rule of law (as mentioned in the Klain editorial) are again mismatched. If and when we gain power again, will we conduct similar purges? We will be reluctant to do that without creating "purges as the new norm". But without doing that, the "ethic" of the Trump administration will be infecting our civil service for a long time to come.

Dark times.

It seems like there will be less need for "purges". After all, most Trump appointees (outside the judiciary, which is a different problem) are in positions which routinely rotate with each new administration. The overwhelming bulk of the Civil Service are still the same folks they've always been. (No doubt to the intense irritation of the Trumpistas.)

The judiciary, admittedly, is another story. I don't know if there is an existing process to weed out mere incompetence (as opposed to malfeasance). If so, there's lots to be said, in the long run, for just letting the process run its course. But if there isn't, perhaps there should be.

what happens when Trump fires Mueller ?

there won't be enough Febreeze in the world to cover up that mess. not that Trump's supporters won't try.

If Trump fires Mueller, does the whole group evaporate? I'm sure Trump, ever the one man band, assumes so. But in fact?

I wouldn't be surprised if the folks that are left file a ton of indictments. And fast. Not to mention those that are already filed but sealed. Trump could be in for a nasty surprise. Especially if some of them name him personally (even if only as an "unindicted co-conspirator"). That would pretty much make an eventual obstruction charge a slam dunk. Not to mention trashing whatever reelection chances he still has.

And isn't this fun?

I tend to dislike people gaming the system. For example piling up a lot of unused vacation in their final year in order to ramp their final year's pay, and so their pension. But in this case, where the timing of the firing was so clearly petty and vindictive, I'd mostly be amused that the firing didn't accomplish its intended purpose.

what happens when Trump fires Mueller ?

then it's time to hit the bricks and make a lot of noise.

it'd be nice to get about 10 million people to show up. you could be one of them.

I tend to dislike people gaming the system.

The description of qualifications from a site that advises federal workers says there are three qualifications: (a) 20 years of law enforcement service (McCabe has that); (b) age 50 (McCabe has that as of today, I think); and (c) still employed by the federal government. No requirement that you retire from a qualifying law enforcement position. Allowing employees to use accumulated leave to reach either the 20 or 50 is standard practice.

There appear to be millions of federal jobs that, the day McCabe is hired for one, he would be eligible to retire from at his full law enforcement pension. Trump/Sessions seem to be gambling that they can make dismissal "for cause" stand up and turn that into some sort of pension disqualification. Or perhaps more accurately, are willing to spend taxpayer dollars making that claim stand up.

wj: what happens when Trump fires Mueller ?

russell: then it's time to hit the bricks and make a lot of noise. it'd be nice to get about 10 million people to show up. you could be one of them.

me: helpful in knowing where/when to show up

The comments to this entry are closed.