« i wore an onion on my belt.... | Main | Digital Tax Avoidance Among the Masses »

March 11, 2019

Comments

One dollar a day will suffice:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/03/2-00-day

Time for a break from political crap. Here are some birds dancing to Bob Marley

https://mobile.twitter.com/welcomet0nature/status/1110942385129820161

Spent the afternoon with the House of Commons running in a window up in the corner of the screen while I fixed a piece of code. At least this week, they're making Congress look moderately competent. The only party that isn't fragmented and is staying firmly on point is the Scottish National Party: repeal Article 50, or if not, Scotland will find a way to be an EU member on its own.

Thank you Donald!

wrs!

For those who aren't old enough to remember, there was a time when the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in public schools. The response in Alabama featured, among other things, just shutting down schools to avoid desegregating them. Apparently, the tradition lives on:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/state-drops-marriage-licenses-to-protect-homophobic-judges.html

I'm just trying to imagine what the reaction would have been, had Obama, or Clinton (either Clinton), or the local (D) dogcatcher for that matter, had sent a memo to TV producers with a list of people to ban from their programming.

We now consider it a relief and a victory if the POTUS is not indicted for criminally conspiring with foreign governments to throw elections. Abuse of office in violation of the 1st Amendment hardly raises an eyebrow. It's just Trump being Trump.

Good times.

Yeah. Imagine if Obama suggested banning people who pushed the claim that he wasn't born in the United States. I'm thinking someone rather prominent would be on that list, but I can't quite remember who that would be.

but at least Trump isn't a Democrat! herpy derpy derp!

Nothing we know (not that much) about the Mueller report changes the known facts presented in this piece from last year. Nothing we will come to learn about the Mueller report (who knows how much?) will change them, either.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-hacking-trump-mueller/565157/

Steven Moore, the nominee for the Fed, is definitely a Trump kind of guy:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/27/stephen-moore-trump-federal-reserve-pick-owes-taxes-us-government-alleges

I'm trying, with total lack of success, to remember the last time an administration was this inept at vetting its nominees. Although I suppose the standard they are using could be "anything Trump did himself is not disqualifying."

the standard they are using

Is he on TV? He must be an expert.

Is he on TV? He must be an expert.

Not quite that simple. It depends on which channel he is on! ;-)

has to be dumb enough to make Trump feel smart, too.

gotta say... i was mighty deflated by Barr's summary.

but, after wondering about it for a bit ... did Barr actually quote a single full sentence of Mueller's report?

This is the only full sentence quoted in Barr's summary:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

In the footnotes:

The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

I don't know how "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" isn't express, let alone tacit, agreement.

Or how all the emails described here: https://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536670194/donald-trump-jr-s-emails-about-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-annotated aren't express, let alone tacit, agreement.

I guess it's just old news, so it doesn't matter.

Or does the "[T]" mean that the quoted sentence was part of a larger sentence and edited to read as a sentence unto itself?

The comments to this entry are closed.