MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
It's been mentioned and commented upon in various places here, so I thought I'd give it its place In The News.
Comments
the 'lodestar"/Mike Pence theory
about which Nate Silver and Matt Glassman agree: No way, more like it's not a cabinet level person
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 7:53pm
Nope. I get the point, but ... no way.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 7:55pm
I have no clue what he means by "it". I copy, you decide, or someone could ask him.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 7:58pm
OIC now, Cizzilla is clearly the type who loves whodunnits:
12 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed and their possible motives
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large, Updated 8:59 PM ET, Wed September 5, 2018
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 9:08pm
Most of that is silliness. Only two or three make sense ... but it's Cillizza.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 9:13pm
oops on the name dyslexia! I blame him discombobulating me.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 9:52pm
If there's Glennzilla, might as well be Cizzillato counter.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 6:35pm
Oh, no! I meant you can count on him to make it more than just the two or three that make sense ... I didn't even notice the discombobulation!
by barefooted on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 6:42pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 7:59pm
David Frum retweeted, is by the editor of the National Journal (highly respected non-partisan publication for beltway types)
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:04pm
Of course it came from Trump - she's his press secretary.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:16pm
It is chilling to watch the grins and applause of current law enforcement officials as they agree with Trump’s rant about the NYT op-ed. Why should we trust these law enforcement officials?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MsXGsqNYpuA
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:06pm
comments worth a glance on that one, as we all know, Josh has a lot of insider type followers, several think Pence, others Sessions, etc.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:10pm
Vox's Dara Lind has put out a fairly long article on it all, the whodunnit, ramifications, what ifs....etc.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:17pm
Interesting. I wrote my comment below before I read the Vox article. I clearly agree on several points, not as much on others.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:44pm
I'm surprised that the consensus favorite isn't Kelly. I got the impression it was someone with a defense background, who isn't a cabinet official but has access to everyone and because of that access also has candid conversations with them about what they're trying to do. And in a position to help.
Keeping in mind, naturally, that whoever it is knows that their anonymous days are numbered - so it follows that they know they'll be fired once they're outed. So doesn't it make sense that it's someone who a) knows they're not long in Trump orbit anyway, and b) might want to brush up their previously stellar but recently tarnished reputation a bit first?
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:32pm
obviously a press conference quote, but mainly he was busy holding Part III of hearings on U.S.-Russia relations
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 8:42pm
by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 9:40pm
There you are! What took you so long??
(eta to Peracles - heads up for future deletion)
eta to Peter The Unverified - heads up that it's my news thread. Verify yourself and write your own stuff on your own thread, but keep your crap off of mine. If you want to talk, talk. But spew in your own space.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 9:59pm
Edited in order to subtract.
I will not feed the trolls.
by moat on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:57pm
I'm sorry but the label "Trump juggernaut" for this presidency made me laugh aloud.
For whatever reason, let's leave that part out right now, he has not accomplished hardly anything he promised. Saying he's all hat no cattle would be kind, his rallies are just straight out fantastical lying to his base, they just imagine a wall and a perfect new cheaper better health care plan covering everyone across state lines and a north korea peace deal.... etc. Imaginary juggernaut, going backwards juggernaut...kafaybe juggernaut...
Edit to add: lots of business articles out right now with results of tax reform turning out to be a big fail according to the Trump wing's own standards
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:02pm
Please note what I wrote above, and interact with it only if necessary and/or warranted.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:01pm
ok.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:11pm
Are you really this ignorant. What are the crimes you refer to? Just to be sure you hear me please list the specific crimes mentioned in this op ed. It's not a crime to not do your job whether because of incompetence or because you disagree with certain particulars of the job. The solution if your employer feels you're not fulfilling the job requirements is to fire you. Not to accuse you of crimes or being part of a criminal conspiracy. Since everyone working in government is an employee of the people all of us can make an individual assessment of the quality of the work performed by our employees. We may decide the employee is incompetent or malicious or we may decide the employee made the right choice in refusing to follow the instructions. Whatever our opinion I see no crime of any kind in this op ed. So again what crime are you referring to?
For example, if my boss orders me to flush several gallons of chemicals down the toilet and I don't do it for environmental reasons that's not a crime. If I discuss it with follow employees and try to get the to refuse to flush the chemicals that's not a criminal conspiracy. Whether you think I'm a poor employee are doing the right thing is a matter of opinion. But none of it is a crime.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:53pm
Ocean-kat - stop. Please read what I wrote above to both Peter The Unverified and to arta. Just don't do it. My news thread, my decision.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:52pm
If you want to remove peter's post and all replies it's your decision. I support that. So long as it's up there I get to respond to it. Sorry, that's how I see it. You don't get to tell us not to respond to trolls. You only get to remove the posts of trolls from your blogs. I did wait for a while before responding and when I didn't see it go, I decided to respond. Perhaps we need a quicker way to remove unwanted posts.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:03pm
So you saw my ask of arta not to respond further, and yet then chose to respond to Peter The Unverified anyway? A quicker way to remove unwanted posts might be nice, but fellow daggers responding to our requests in real time might be better.
By the way, you added this part (which I didn't see if it was there when I responded): You don't get to tell us not to respond to trolls. You only get to remove the posts of trolls from your blogs. Two things here. No, I can only request. If you wish to be an ass I can't stop you. And secondly, I also can't remove a post from a troll or anyone else at the push of a button.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:16pm
We disagree. I did respond to your request in real time. The answer was no. If you think answering no to a request makes someone an ass well we disagree about that too.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:33pm
If PTU (I'm tired of bothering with the full name) decides to respond to you, or elsewhere on this thread, will you respond if you just kinda, maybe, sorta feel like it? In spite of my request or perhaps because of it at this point? If so, I'll take that into account, as I have this conversation.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:43pm
I've explained myself fully. You are free to disagree and give me your reasons why. Until that happens I have nothing more to add.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:46pm
You're right. A request is nothing more than a request, and the person on the receiving end of it has just as much of a right to deny as to agree. Point taken.
by barefooted on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 12:17am
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 11:04am
Crime, fool, list the specific crimes. For example Trump ordered Mattis to assassinate Assad. Mattis didn't do it and informed his staffer after he hung up the phone he wasn't going to do it.
What is the crime Mattis could be charged with?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 11:38am
I'm not sure how much a direction by a president to a subordinate (which everyone else is, basically) over the phone counts, but generally disobeying an order from the CIC is insubordination, at least. Would that be a crime or just a fireable offense? Not sure, would likely depend on many variables and the titles held by the people involved.
by barefooted on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 6:33pm
The president is CIC of the military and disobeying a lawful order is a crime for military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ doesn't cover civilians. They would need to be prosecuted under civil laws.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 6:59pm
Yes. Short of espionage, civilians - even government officials - are not under the purview of military justice, nor can their actions be considered treasonous. At worst they're fired ... unless they decide being a spy for a foreign government pays better.
by barefooted on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 7:25pm
I suppose given the number of generals working for Trump a case could be made against them for disobeying an order. Though I think it would be hard to get a conviction. And then only if they maintained their commission. Retired military personnel are no longer governed by the UCMJ.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 7:53pm
As far as I know, McMaster is the only current administration employee who is still active duty.
eta: there's a possible (though highly implausible) case to be made for a soft coup in the works - don't know how that would play out. That's likely the direction that PTU and his friends are leaning toward, with the expected lack of anything but spittle.
by barefooted on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 8:17pm
by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 8:43pm
Fine, you don't believe it happened. There's no proof, only Woodward's reporting. But you claimed the author of the op ed, " publicly admit to being part of a criminal conspiracy to undermine the constitutional powers of a sitting president." Again, what are the specific crimes he can be charged with?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 8:48pm
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 9:24am
Oh, so you suddenly like Manafort's charges/conviction?
First, the "conspiracy" just furthers the reach of the underlying crime. It's a question whether "hey, we should keep this bozo from falling on his face" rises to the level of cooperative effort needed for conspiracy, vs. "hey, you handle this room, I'll handle that, you bring $X, I'll bring the wheelbarrow..."
Then there's the crime itself - "impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of a government agency". When Eleanor Roosevelt stepped in for an ailing FDR, it is doubtful that she was "impeding" vs. assisting an incapacitated President, which is one reason we implemented these laws. The Op-Ed is rather self-serving. But it's still a question whether in-good-faith substituting a quack conservative view of "throw more money at defense, strip all health care" for a completely insane "now I'm going to make N. Korean Kim my new head of DOJ, and by the way, Tuesday will be Cheetos Day!" blather from the purported head of state is in fact a "crime" or at least of some benefit to the country (Google "how to avoid an unnecessary nuclear war").
There's a 2nd part to the statute, but I'll let you figure it out.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 9:58am
This charge requires there be some actual crimes that two or more people discussed, colluded, and engaged in. If there are no underlying crimes there can be no criminal conspiracy. For example Manafort was found guilty of money laundering and bank fraud among other crimes and that he conspired with others to commit those crimes. Without the money laundering, bank fraud, and other crimes there would be no criminal conspiracy. There would simply be a discussion of non criminal activity or a "Conspiracy" to engage in legal activity. So no, Conspiracy Against the US is not specific. What are the crimes the op ed writer conspired with others to commit.
I see why you like Trump. You're just like him. You're ignorant. You spout off in hyperbolic ways despite that ignorance. And you make up bullshit to attempt to justify your ignorant statements.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 10:52am
It is A CRIME to oppose the WILL of the Führer..!!!!
It is DUTY to be obsequious servile toadies so TRUMP CAN BE TRUMP..!!
They have broken their most sacred oath!!
by NCD on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 12:22pm
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 1:58pm
You went on two rants about how the op ed writer has " publicly admit to being part of a criminal conspiracy" yet you can't name a single crime that was committed by him in this so called criminal conspiracy. As I knew to be the case, you're just a blowhard. What will happen if he is revealed is he will be fired. No crime, no charges, no criminal conspiracy.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 5:27pm
Ah Peter, still ignoring me - must be hard to be slapped down so much. Guess you're not coming here for the politics...
Kavanaugh leaked Ken Starr info to the public, provided a back channel from Paula Jones to Starr's office, Distributed & used stolen Democratic emails from Congress in 2001-2003 to promote GOP nominees, including docs Leahy exhibited. He's lied about his time in the Bush Administration (with papers to prove it), lied to this committee, covered up torture and buried the evidence.. He's stolen, perjured, conspired - all through his career, all on significant matters of law, not just trying to make Trump look good and to cover up that your Emperor is butt naked, like your dutiful little op-ed oompa-loompas in the White House. But you want to go after 1st Amendment cases with newspapers. Remember, the FBI was "certain" that Hillary would be indicted any day, and the GOP was "certain" she had Parkinsons and certain she'd been hacked (except they never ever ever found her emails so had to hack Podesta), and any number of other scandalous bullshit "certainties" that your tribe deals in. It's been a successful ride, but at least now we're seeing the indictments, convictions, plea bargains and other come-uppance, but I do admit, the race is still in full fury, and your guys have lots of stacked, rigged, immoral weapons & money & power at your disposal. Go ahead, see if you can distract for your team, rage against the machine, pretending it's not your Frankenstein, your sock puppet.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 5:55pm
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 11:01am
Oh, congratulations for rolling right by my link and then claiming there's nothing there. Yes, it describes the illegal and unethical things Kavanaugh did back then. But you're Dagblog's Sgt Schultz when it comes to malfeasance on the right.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 11:26am
It's a big victory for the Federalist Society and the senate republicans. Trump is just going along for the ride. It's a loss for my side but not a victory for Trump. He doesn't care. If the president was Cruz or even Jeb Bush they would have considered their pick carefully. It would still be a loss for my side but the president would have put thought behind it. Trump just looked at the Federalist Society list and thoughtlessly picked one. How he deals with his Supreme Court pick is emblematic of the man, ignorant and thoughtless. You may think Kavanaugh is a good or even the best pick but it's not because of Trump's reasoned analysis that he was picked. You may like what you're getting but I don't see how you can respect the man.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 6:12pm
published 1 hr. ago @ WaPo
Trump aides hunt for author of op-ed who claims to be part of a ‘resistance’ within administration
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:12pm
That's almost funny - what else were his aides going to do? Other than trying to keep his head from exploding, of course.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:29pm
Yeah and I should have used the interior headline rather than the home page one. Another "I'm so old that": I remember when the term "sleeper cell" was a new one that needed defining, describing what Al Qaeda was doing in late 2001 and early 2002....
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:34pm
Lawrence O'Donnell live right now on his MSNBC show argued strongly for a good few minutes that it must be D.N.I. Dan Coats, finally inspired to act after doing some things in public already, to do something more blatant, anything, after going through the death and funeral of his "good friend" John McCain.
He just had a guest agree with him.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 10:44pm
Ahhh .... a good possibility.
by barefooted on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:02pm
I actually found it enjoyable to get a little taste of the Hannity pushback show by watching a few seconds of this segment this evening. And then there's that words fail me once I saw the guest and heard her talk:
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:08pm
There is no getting around this now about Hannity in particular, the similarity to North Korean propaganda is striking:
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 7:53am
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:26pm
Bookies place odds on anonymous White House official @ NYPost.com, Sept. 5, 9:02 pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/05/2018 - 11:54pm
My guess is Reality Winner. or Chelsea Manning. Or maybe Nunes made a White House run?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 2:32am
Never fear! Kim Jong Un and King Lear will purge this Deep State Swamp together!
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 7:41am
In reality world, should be just this simple?
But we are living in a post-post-modern version of Paddy Chayefsky's Network world?
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 8:44am
I think very funny poli-sci professor @ianbremmer
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 8:28am
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 9:29am
The best course of action is to impeach the entire administration and hold new elections for President.
by moat on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 11:17am
There is no provision for that in the Constitution, though annuling the results of the prior election due to criminal malfeasance might have legal justification. But that won't happen because... those emails.
BTW, it was a year ago September we found out Trump's team was using private email accounts, but no one quite gives a goddamn. Hear any liberals wringing their hands that heavily about how easy to hack into Don's emails? Will the NYTimes keep Omarosa's recordings and videos on the front page as a serious security violation? Nope, it takes a village to raise a scandal, and that period's behind us. Snookered, all of us.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 12:17pm
Or impeach the electorate.
by Flavius on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 3:00pm
Exclusive: Snakes Everywhere:
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 11:46am
1974 denial:
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 12:02pm
What ever one thinks about this so called "resistance" fighter's actions that Trump isn't firing them means there's two possibilities one must face. Either Trump knows he engages in wild unhinged rants and gives orders he later regrets so he doesn't mind that his officials ignore them. Or he doesn't remember giving certain orders and is unaware people in his administration are ignoring them.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 1:50pm
From the "GOP media guy" author of "Everything Trump Touches Dies":
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 4:47pm
Oh, that's really good. Jennifer Rubin's piece is good, too, and kinda gets to the same point: dude (or dudette), it's not really working for ya to remain anonymous. The kudos aren't there, even from the real #Resistance gang.
It always interests me that former Republicans can say it better than most Democrats can.
by barefooted on Thu, 09/06/2018 - 6:18pm
Nice big picture point:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 12:18am
It's been mentioned and commented upon in various places here, so I thought I'd give it its place In The News.
by Thomas (not verified) on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 4:16am
:D
by beach head 2002 (not verified) on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 4:17am
I found it helpful to re-read the piece after so much input from others, which always ends up taking one's mind on tangents.
I noted something I hadn't before, that there are three embedded links.
This
That is to Jim Mattis Compared Trump to ‘Fifth or Sixth Grader,’ Bob Woodward Says in Book by Landler & Haberman, Sept. 4
And this
which is to a March 26 Times piece, Trump and Western Allies Expel Scores of Russians in Sweeping Rebuke Over U.K. Poisoning
And then at the end, there is the link to McCain's farewell letter:
I think these two quotes are key to the message the writer is trying to send
Among other things, I think it's saying to conservative Republicans: not to worry, ignore it when he goes off on the silly childish nonsense, the administration does It's kind of like McCain's big speech when he returned to the Senate for the health care vote: stop listening to the loud mouths on the radio and get back to work and regular order and let's get some things done. Writer is saying they do that ignoring already and are getting things done, don't be distracted by all the Trump/Hannity agitpop, ignore the 5th grader, the executive branch is basically running as if Pence were the president.
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 2:06pm
P.S. It's actually to insulate from the effects of the reveals in Woodward's book? As in: don't panic when you read this stuff, the narcissist child figurehead is a pain in the ass and it's not easy dealing with his effects, but in the end everything is under control. Big picture, it certainly presents a strong argument that there isn't a unitary executive in this country, that instead that there is an executive branch that runs thing.
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 2:16pm
When thinking more conspiratorially, this is what I think may be the motivation behind people like Anonymous being willing to stay in the administration:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 3:14pm
Okay, so Anonymous says we've got a narcissist troll child for a presidential figurehead. And my belief is that you can only handle trolls by not feeding/ignoring, or by ridicule. It's sort of impossible to not feed when the troll is the president because so many Americans believe he has so much power and the media covers our government by following that belief, they follow his every move and statement, and Pompeo and DeVos don't get nearly as much attention.
So how's it going on the ridicule front?
This HuffPo piece is promising:
Trump Insists ‘I Don’t Talk The Way I Am Quoted.’ Twitter Users Disagree.
The president claimed he’d never have been elected if he spoke the way he’s quoted in Bob Woodward’s new book, “Fear.”
I like this one example there by Peggy the mom from Boca:
Saturday Night Live will be back soon....
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 2:40pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 3:01pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/07/2018 - 3:58pm
also earlier Radosh tweeted this Slate piece by William Saletan suggesting Jon Huntsman:
FWIW, Bill Kristol agrees with Saletan.
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/09/2018 - 3:29pm
I agree with this take from the Kristol feed:
Shelton Bumgarner
If there is any amount of cooperation between the different players, there is probably a lot of it.
by moat on Sun, 09/09/2018 - 3:53pm
Fascinating. A collaboration? Collusion!
by barefooted on Sun, 09/09/2018 - 11:51pm
Josh chimes in and says the "senior" is actually junior.
I follow his logic regarding how the term gets used loosely but won't the NYT take a serious hit if they inflated the story?
by moat on Sun, 09/09/2018 - 5:20pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 5:40pm
by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 7:43pm
sounds to me like billionaires of the world unite against the deep state and former employees breaking their nondisclosure agreements, you have nothing to lose but your money
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/12/2018 - 7:50pm
Apparently the Deep State worms won one against some of your buddies
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/13/2018 - 1:15am
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/13/2018 - 1:23am
The emergence of Trump is a referendum in this country on courage and how it is demonstrated. Oscar Wilde framed it this way in the Picture of Dorian Gray:
The view of Lord Harry explains why no amount of moral censure decreases Trump's standing amongst his base. They are rejecting the act of moralizing censure through acts of what they see as political courage. Trump is no longer running an operation that has to produce an objective result in the sense that Res relates. He is the will of his people where only Basils need apply.
by moat on Thu, 09/13/2018 - 10:53am