That expands on this, published by the NYT on Friday (and not yet blogged by me), "White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry."
And the new article dredges up something from last fall:
Last fall, Mr. McGahn believed that he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing by the president in part because of an article published in The Times in September, which described a conversation that a reporter had overheard between Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb.Does the Times ever consider that Dowd and Cobb intended to be overheard? They were speaking loudly, next to a NYT reporter.
In the conversation — which occurred over lunch at a table on the sidewalk outside the Washington steakhouse B.L.T. — Mr. Cobb discussed the White House’s production of documents to Mr. Mueller’s office. Mr. Cobb talked about how Mr. McGahn was opposed to cooperation and had documents locked in his safe.
I don't like being nudged to get excited about this — sudden realization, etc. etc. Is something specific and important happening here or is the NYT serving its own interests? Without looking more deeply into this, I'm inclined to assume McGahn did what he was asked to do and operated within his role as White House Counsel of protecting the institution of the presidency. That's different from Trump's own lawyers, who focus on this particular problem. And the longterm interest of the presidency is in preserving confidentiality and executive privilege. Trump with his lawyers wanted to cooperate with Mueller (or at least appear to be doing so unless and until Mueller goes too far). What is the sudden crisis?
And, yes, I know that Trump's lawyer Giuliani said "Truth isn’t truth." It's a fantastic quote for Trump haters to use to the hilt, but I'm not getting excited about it. In context:
“It’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth,” Mr. Giuliani said of any statements by the president in such an interview.Giuliani was obviously repeating his point that it's "somebody's version of the truth" and not the truth. He's not saying truth isn't truth or there is no truth. He's saying what Chuck Todd called "truth" isn't truth.
“Truth is truth,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, answered.
“No, it isn’t truth,” Mr. Giuliani replied. “Truth isn’t truth.”
ADDED: At Facebook, my son John links to "Giuliani walks back 'truth isn't truth' comment" (Politico) and I say:
Politico spins by saying he's walking it back. If you understood the line they way I did (see above), it's not a walk-back but a confirmation. What Giuliani said was, "My statement was not meant as a pontification on moral theology but one referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements, the classic 'he said,she said' puzzle. Sometimes further inquiry can reveal the truth other times it doesn’t." I understood it that way all along. No walk back. Just more spin from the anti-Trump press.Credit to Politico for choosing a great photo of Giuliani (in support of its spin).
पोस्ट्स
११९ टिप्पण्या:
"Does the Times ever consider that Dowd and Cobb intended to be overheard? They were speaking loudly, next to a NYT reporter."
No. The smartest people in the world are too smart to be conned by the dumb Trump lawyers.
Or.
Too good to check.
There's the truth. Also, there's 'truth', truthiness and the ever slimy your truth'.
But what about My Truth?
There is no truth when it comes to competing memories of long-ago conversations.
Rather, there are blurry memories on both sides and an arbiter in between deciding which fuzzy memory to believe.
The Rudy interview with Maria Bartiromo included much more news than did the one with Chuck Todd. In that interview, Rudy tipped the White House position that Brennan orchestrated CIA operative contacts with Trump Campaign hangers on. So the CIA performed operations against U.S. citizens to help the FBI and DOJ secure an illegal FISC warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen. Also, this explains a lot of the NSA 702 searches.
Anybody reading the source documents has known this for quite some while. But hearing Rudy say what is plain was an interesting tidbit.
Let's ask the Truth Fairy.
Hillary's loss - hanging by a thread.
REvenge!
"It's a fantastic quote for Trump haters to use to the hilt, but I'm not getting excited about it."
The problem for Trump haters is that the "fantastic" quotes aren't. For a couple of years now they've been paving their road to hell with "fantastic quotes" whose plain meaning is perfectly clear to non-TDS sufferers.
In Chuck Todd's(D) world, there is only one true truth. The narrative(D).
but ... but ... but Donald Trump, Jr., met with a Russian woman who was supposed to have dirt about Hillary Clinton!
"But what about My Truth?"
I don't know about you, but I'm living my best truth.
New revelation
Sudden realization
Latest bombshell
Sudden crisis
Newly discovered
Republicans pounce
Hack press buzzwords.
"The unexamined lie is not worth telling." -- So Crates
but but but... Donald Trump joked about Russians finding Hillary's deleted e-mails!
Does the Times ever consider that Dowd and Cobb intended to be overheard? They were speaking loudly, next to a NYT reporter.
Never forget, reporters are stupid rich kids who couldn't get into law school.
Have a hunch this sudden concern trolling in the NYT is more about their frustration with McGahn as the architect of an inexorable stream of amazing judicial nominations including the two SCOTUS picks and less about well, reality.
It's illegal to dig up dirt on the Clintons. Also, it's illegal to say anything critical of Hillary before an election. (or ever, for that matter.)
Because millionaires billionaires and corporations.
Never mind all the tax payer money that Obama gave to mega corporate insurance companies who played along. Gotta move the socialist ball down the court.
The NYT: Ladling out chum for the chumps 24/7/365.
Stupid never sleeps.
The NYT is having a slow motion screaming contest or cat fight, but as much as it may seem interesting to observe, it is ultimately meaningless. Smart move not to let the hubbub distract you.
Chuck Todd's intentional inability to understand Rudy is pure deceit.
The media's use of the out of context quote “Truth isn’t truth” is also intentional deceit.
Democracy dies in deceit.
Chuck Todd: smarmy, smug Dem hack who bandies words for a living.
Sad.
Here in the Midwest, every business large or small, service or manufacturing, has a sign out front: Now Hiring.
Memories are not truth. For example, you go on vacation with your family during which there is some bickering, a few tense moments, perhaps even some raised voices and harsh words - mostly related to what to eat and when and activities. In addition, the weather is iffy with only a couple of really nice vacation days (whatever that means to you). Yet 6 mos or more later everyone remembers the vacation as awesome, they've forgotten all the angst and disharmony, and only remember the good weather days.
This is why people's memories of an event in which they participated differ, sometimes dramatically. I heard they did a study about this phenomenon.
-sw
Chuck Todd’s intentional inability to understand Rudy is pure deceit.
Did you ever watch Anger Management, when no matter what Adam Sandler says, they take it to mean exactly what they had decided it was going to mean way before he opened his mouth? It’s there technique, same with the joke about Russia and Hillary’s emails.
That's the truth, Ruth.
How much tax payer money are we wasting on the Bueller(D) witch hunt?
Chuck Todd is a Clintonesque weasel
Supposing truth to be a woman - what? is the suspicion not well-founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women, that the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity with which they have been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper means for sinning a wench?
- Beyond Good and Evil
Rudy was in Anger Management at the end at a Yankee game, when he was still a national hero, before the Democrats in the press got through with him.
One thing is for sure - Chuck Todd got Rudy by the balls on this one. Impeachment indictment hanging be-heading are just a moment away.
As Instapundit says " just think of the press as an arm of the democratic party".
The only thing newsworthy about the NYT is its nonnewsworthiness.
Chuck Todd thinks he's Tim Russert.
Does the Times ever consider that Dowd and Cobb intended to be overheard?
And what possible reason would they have for doing that?
Unless you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why they would want to be overheard planting (presumably) a false narrative, your question is very silly. It's not like they could later claim that the New York Times was making shit up.
And what possible reason would they have for doing that?
If you can’t think of one, I am sure none can possibly exist.
Forget the NYT.
The real issues are 1. What did McGahn tell Mueller? 2. Does McGahn have DJT's best interests at heart?
It seems: 1. a lot, and 2. no -- making it easier for Mueller to pin an obstruction charge on DJT.
Trump's blather about "no collusion" is irrelevant at this point. This is no phony-baloney casino contract dispute.
"tcrosse said...
Chuck Todd thinks he's Tim Russert."
It's a shame he is not.
I was once invited to breakfast with my bank's loan officers to plan a marketing reasearch project that I would do for them. We barely spoke above a whisper. They explained that they always ate at the same diner in the same booth, and that their main competitor always sat in the booth behind them. It was surreal.
I heard them say "Shithole Democrats."
Ask Dick Durbin, he heard it, too.
The idea that obstruction of justice can be pinned on an action specifically authorized by the Constitution to the office of the president is fantastic.
And I mean that in the fullest sense of the word, fantastic.
I'd like to make book on which scandal Althouse gives priority to: Asia Argento has had a #metoo allegation made against her. Gretchen Carlson has been accused of bullying Miss America and the staff of the Miss America organization. My bet is on Asia Argento. Th far reaching implications of this case will make us all better people if we wallow in the schadenfreude.
"Supposing truth to be a woman - what? is the suspicion not well-founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women, that the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity with which they have been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper means for sinning a wench?"
I would like to be able to grasp and benefit from this writing — maybe a different translation would help — but it's just such a mess.
"the clumsy importunity with which they" — there are 2 possible "they's." I have to figure out from context that he means the philosophers.
"the clumsy importunity with which they have been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper" — the subject of that clause seems to be "importunity," so it goes off the rails at "have."
"sinning a wench" — maybe long ago people spoke English like that.
Can you put that in the best modern English possible?
Let's say truth is a woman. Philosophers try to have a serious relationship with her, but they're such inept nerds that they only try to have sex with her, and they're so rushed, clumsy, and inept that it's pretty much just date rape.
For context, Giuliani went on to quote a case where two witnesses gave diametrically opposite accounts of the same incident.
"...rushed, clumsy, and inept..."
Now that equals date rape?
How will virgins escape the date rape trap Althouse has set for them?
If you can’t think of one, I am sure none can possibly exist.
Apparently you can't think of one either. Otherwise you would have skipped the snark and provided one. (Or more likely still been snarky, but provided a reason also to demonstrate how stoopid I am.)
I would like to be able to grasp and benefit from this writing
It's from a video game box, so it's probably been machine-translated from Chinese.
Either that or it's from one of those brain-damaged German guys.
" I heard they did a study about this phenomenon."
And a movie called "Rashomon."
I'm trying to remember the book or movie where someone said, "What's truth? You don't came across truth that easy."
That's why no court jury is ever going to believe another FBI agent recalling an interview from 302 forms and no audio tape.
And what possible reason would they have for doing that?
I literally laughed out loud when I read that.
"...they're so rushed, clumsy, and inept that it's pretty much just date rape."
Let's say truth is a woman. Philosophers try to have a serious relationship with her, but they're such inept nerds that they finally work up the courage to knock on her door only to find she's away on her honeymoon. Then they go home and masturbate in tears.
Field Marshal Freder is back to instruct us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude
Maybe that's supposing all truths are of equal character.
Ann,
"He's not saying truth isn't truth or there is no truth. He's saying what Chuck Todd called 'truth' isn't truth."
Fair enough. It's another gaffe, along the lines of Kellyanne Conway's "Alternative Facts", that Chuck Todd also got a lot of mileage out of. That's fine as an isolated incident. But, if you're going to speak of context, it doesn't take a "Trumphater" (because I'm certainly not one) to see this with the president's hiring of a disgraced doctor, plus the GOP's own apparent disconnect from reality, AND all the nonsense on the Left, to conclude - no matter what Rudy meant - "truth' isn't truth" is precisely what we've got (It wasn't this bad when Kellyanne did it).
I'm not sure if I'm concerned because Trump won and, with a few dramatic exceptions, I've finally been getting what I want politically, or because Trump won and, with a few dramatic exceptions, I'm afraid the gains I've seen will be lost, as the enemies of reason are now defended in the name of "free speech". I'm just going to have to wait it out, knowing facts are facts, and they're enough. They have been so far. No matter who it's against or what anyone says or does, it just takes time. I'm like Alice in Wonderland, realizing, "They're nothing but a pack of cards!" and - poof! - the unreal are gone. The point for me is Trump's in office now, and that's going to keep ethics front-and-center, exactly where I want them.
Did you say, "I know my truth"?
...Oh, Boy.
And what always happens? The first thing the truth says is we're going to be Platonic.
Was this it:
theconservativetreehouse.com
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/18/rudy-giuliani-discusses-status-of-mueller-investigation/amp/
Couldn't find any trace of It, in most publications.
The bowling green episode is,relevant to the Islamic State shooter who surfaced in Sacramento last week.
John Cobb was previously prince talals divorce attorney, he wasn't really tuned in to the right frequency.
Ann Althouse: "the clumsy importunity with which they have been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper" — the subject of that clause seems to be "importunity," so it goes off the rails at "have."
For what it's worth, the subject is both "importunity" and the preceding "earnestness". Hence "have".
But I agree that the whole thing is, overall, not clearly written.
"It seems: 1. a lot, and 2. no -- making it easier for Mueller to pin an obstruction charge on DJT.
Trump's blather about "no collusion" is irrelevant at this point. This is no phony-baloney casino contract dispute."
I think that would be hilarious. Any "obstruction" charge that Mueller might submit would wrongly presuppose that the parties involved had some sort of legal justification beyond the President. They don't. The first phrase of the first sentence in Article II grants the President all Executive power. What that means in a nation governed by the consent of the governed is that any intent for any Executive branch employee to claim power over the President and his actions is fundamentally illegitimate. They have as much power as he delegates to them, and nothing more. What it would do though is shine a light on the Deep State that somehow thinks that it does have some sort of moral legitimacy and power outside the President and the Constitution, and that their attempt to override the will of the people in their election of Trump has some sort of legitimacy, and, of course, it does not. But the Deep State further outing itself short months before the midterm elections can't but help the Republicans, since turnout is esp critical in such elections, and seeing the Deep State trying to negate their votes of 2016 through a naked power grab is likely to drive many of these voters back to the polls in November. Bring it on!!!
Last fall, Mr. McGahn believed that he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing
He thinks he's John Dean?
Pilate said unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and said unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Freder Frederson,
The conversation, if overheard, gives deniability to the counselors if later they ar accused of leaking.
There.
That wasn’t snarky and has the advantage of being useful.
Also, you might be made an idiot by your partisanship.
Also, you might be made an idiot by your partisanship.
Oh no. He was an idiot before that. He opines on things he knows nothing about.
You want answers?
I think I'm entitled to them.
You want answers!!?
I want the truth!
(Everybody) YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Not going to lie: "Truth isn't the truth" is probably going to be one of the most damaging quotes until Giuliani says something else stupid. He can be a really smart guy, but it is like all his media savvy just dried up a few years ago.
"The Rudy interview with Maria Bartiromo included much more news than did the one with Chuck Todd. In that interview, Rudy tipped the White House position that Brennan orchestrated CIA operative contacts with Trump Campaign hangers on. So the CIA performed operations against U.S. citizens to help the FBI and DOJ secure an illegal FISC warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen. Also, this explains a lot of the NSA 702 searches.
Anybody reading the source documents has known this for quite some while. But hearing Rudy say what is plain was an interesting tidbit."
As Birkel said, this has been pretty clear for quite some time, but it is now bubbling up to the surface. Let me repeat this - it looks more and more obvious that Brennan and his CIA manufactured the predicates for the FBI's FISA warrant on Carter Page out of thin air. It was done this way because the FBI couldn't do it all by themselves, without it being too obvious. The CIA operates with spies overseas, and that is precisely what the FBI needed here - that foreign spies were involved, that foreign spies were trying to affect our election. What the FBI cleverly forgot to mention to the FISC was that the spies involved were being paid by the Deep State portion of our own govt. (interestingly, Brennan getting his security clearance yanked highlighted that an ONI analyst got his clearance revoked because he whistle blew that Stefan Halper, apparently the Brit running Downer and Misfyp, had been paid over $1m for work that the analyst thought was supposed to go to Americans by law).
The importance of this is that it is more and more obvious that Mueller was appointed based on manufactured evidence that looks almost plausible on the surface, but is, in the end, complete vapor ware. It just had to look good to DAG Rubenstein, and did, convincing him that a special prosecutor was needed. But a multiagency scam is something else completely. The Mueller investigation was fraudulently obtained and constituted, and has no actual moral legitimacy, because it wasn't based on a real threat to this country, but rather was based on smoke from a fire over in Langly, seen by Foggy Bottom, and reported by them to the FBI.
The conversation, if overheard, gives deniability to the counselors if later they ar accused of leaking.
There.
That wasn’t snarky and has the advantage of being useful.
Maybe I am dense, but this makes no sense at all. By discussing sensitive information in public they have a defense if they are accused of leaking?
"I didn't leak anything, I just had a loud discussion about it in a restaurant where anyone sitting nearby could have heard it."
Huh?
Everyone is missing the absolute best line of the interview when Rudy says to Todd, "If you're such a genius ... "
Todd is a hack and a lightweight, and Rudy just lays it on him. And, of course, Todd has nothing relevant to say; he has no way to respond. He knows EXACTLY what Rudy is implying, but his delusional self can't process it.
Classic!
Matthew Sablan,
You say that through the lense of a guy who follows the news closely.
Step back three paces.
Now try to think about how America’s Mayor is pilloried by the press for saying something adults already know.
What those people hear is school marm-ish MSM types correcting the English of another.
It does not play as well as the MSM might hope.
Blogger Otto said...
As Instapundit says " just think of the press as an arm of the democratic party"
Should be: "...just think of the press as an arm of the DNC War Room"
Good, Crack.
Don't be too hard on Brennan. After all, he did a good job of explaining how Hillary and her campaign colluded with the Russians.
Maddow: What would amount, in your mind, in intelligence terms, to an American being a part of that conspiracy; the one that’s been defined by Robert Mueller already?
Brennan: “I will leave it to the lawyers and to the courts to decide if something is criminal or not. In my mind, it requires someone to knowingly support the efforts of a foreign government to interfere in U.S. domestic politics and especially an election.” – “And so, any American who was working with the Russians, or working with an intermediaries who were working with Russians; and those Americans who knowingly tried to collude, conspire, and to work with them in order to advance their political objectives here in the states, I think that rises to the level of conspiracy.”
So "intermediaries" were just who ?
“any American who was working with the Russians, or working with intermediaries who were working with Russians”.
That phrase specifically describes: the Clinton Campaign, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Stephan Halper, Christopher Steele, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Adam Waldman, and Senator Mark Warner.
…”and those Americans who knowingly tried to collude, conspire, and to work with them in order to advance their political objectives here in the states”…
The distinction in that second part of the quote might remove Clinton or Perkins Coie; however “working with intermediaries who were working with the Russians” would keep them in.
Additionally, all of the media entities who engaged in the promotion, advancement, and distribution of the propaganda as an outcome of knowingly meeting with those foreign officials – would also be considered part of the “conspiracy”.
Interesting. Brennan might have blurted out the truth in, of all places, MSNBC.
Sounds like the NYT is pouncing, nay, seizing on this "news".
Freder Frederson,
You asked for an explanation. I gave you one. I satisfied your first request instead of mocking you. Your demand for a second thing after admitting you will not allow yourself to understand seems misguided. Why would I pull a hair for you after this sorry performance?
Let me tweak that last a bit:
The Mueller investigation was fraudulently obtained and constituted, and has no actual moral legitimacy, because it wasn't based on a real threat to this country, but rather was based on nothing more than smoke from a fire set by the spies in Langly, seen by the diplomats in Foggy Bottom, and reported by them to counterintelligence people at the FBI.
I don't like being nudged to get excited about this — sudden realization, etc. etc. Is something specific and important happening here or is the NYT serving its own interests?
These articles are fish food for a segment of the Times' readers. They swim around in their own little world where Mueller is about to indict Trump, and the Blue Wave will hand the Dems not only the House but enough Senate seats to impeach.
As they swim past the plastic White House, with a sign outside they can't read but know must mean something about resistance, they wonder why others don't seem to be seeing the world as they do. Anytime they begin to despair, little specs of something tasty are mysteriously dropped into their environment from above, as a sign that indeed all is well.
It generally takes the form of "person A is cooperating" or "Trump's lawyers seem concerned about this" or even "Trump did something small today which might in itself become an impeachable offense if the Mueller thing doesn't work out".
Anything to let them know THEY'RE the ones who continue to see the world clearly while the rest of the world exists in a fog.
Michael K,
The Brennan quote is a classic case of Leftist projection.
Everything the Left accuses a Republican of doing, they are actively doing themselves.
Fen’s Law?
See, also, silencing critics online.
Matthew Sablan,
Let me illustrate my point. ONLY AS AN ILLUSTRATION!!!!
Bruce Hayden forgot that Langley is spelled with an ‘E’.
That does not detract from his point, which is clear to everybody.
Even now, as I point it out to make my point, I feel like an ass hole.
And if anybody thought I was honestly criticizing Bruce Hayden, they too would rightly think me an ass hole.
The MSM is acting to correct Rudy’s spelling.
Nobody likes that fucking guy.
Anything to let them know THEY'RE the ones who continue to see the world clearly while the rest of the world exists in a fog.
We see them right here. Most days. You wonder how long they can keep thinking these fantasies are true and maybe that will end with the election.
I fear the election will give them enough to keep dreaming that all is as they see it.
We rarely see great waves in the political world. The last time was 1932 and we are still suffering from it.
Reagan did what he could but was still saddled with a Democrat Congress, which let him win the Cold War as long as he let them spend us into bankruptcy.
Then 1994 came but the Democrats were successful in forcing Gingrich out, partly due to his own failures, and we then had Hastert, a member in good standing of the "Illinois Combine" as John Kass calls it.
I guess we will see how it goes.
Michael K,
The number of eGOP congress critters who are retiring gives me heart.
Almost all will be replaced with more conservative Republicans who are more serious about accomplishing conservative legislation.
Here’s hoping!
You asked for an explanation.
I asked for a reasonable explanation.
You asked for an explanation.
I asked for a reasonable explanation.
Time again for that classic educational video
Don't talk to the Police!!!
Freder Frederson,
Next time ask for an explanation with which you will agree. Save everybody time.
Truth is truth,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, answered.
I thought all truth is subjective?
Freder provides our own local humor every post.
Seeing Red,
Good point.
Imagine an industry that talks about “narrative” as much as the MSM suddenly thinking “truth is truth” all of a sudden.
"Sinning a wench"--nobody ever spoke like that in English, and Nietzsche didn't in German. He can be dense and gnomic, but the quotation from "Beyond Good and Evil" becomes much clearer if the typo is corrected. Nietzsche's verb is "einzunehmen" and the final phrase should read "winning over a wench."
Here's a much clearer translation (not mine): "Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Wouldn’t we have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they so far have habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It’s clear that truth did not allow herself to be won over."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5CKOouPuaU
“Bruce Hayden forgot that Langley is spelled with an ‘E’.
That does not detract from his point, which is clear to everybody.”
Be my guest there. I always struggled with spelling, and probably have gotten worse with Apple’s spellchecker.
Freder Frederson said...
You asked for an explanation.
I asked for a reasonable explanation.
Never forget no matter how stupid the Russians Collusions story/narrative gets there are people stupid enough to believe it.
"Truth isn't truth" is attacked by the same people who will say "my truth" without blushing.
"For what it's worth, the subject is both "importunity" and the preceding "earnestness". Hence "have"."
I see your point, but that adds to the mess. The text is, "the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity... have been inept and improper means..."
I would accept the "have" if there were an "and" as in, ""the gruesome earnestness and the clumsy importunity... have been inept and improper means..." but the comma after "earnestness" makes what follows it seem like it's modifying "importunity."
And there's this parallelism with the previous have: "they have been... they have been...." The first "they" is the philosophers — " they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women" so it's very weird, in the same sentence to get another "they have been" where it's not the philosophers, but an abstraction/abstractions that are qualities possessed by the philosophers, "earnestness" and "importunity."
I can see that the use of the comma in "have been dogmatists, have had little understanding" supports the idea that "the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity" forms a plural subject and justifies "have."
So, I guess I agree with you that there's no grammar mistake, but it's just a very ugly mess. Maybe it's some old fashioned circumlocution that was considered necessary in using the sex metaphor and presumably this pile up of phrases feels normal in German.
Maybe this is like my Gatsby project. I only want to deal with one sentence at a time and untangling and paraphrasing it is something I like to do.
Friedrich Nietzche is indecipherable in any language.
Untreated syphilis has a tendency to do that to people.
You wonder how long they can keep thinking these fantasies are true and maybe that will end with the election.
As long as the NYT keeps dropping little bits of food into the tank.
I fear the election will give them enough to keep dreaming that all is as they see it.
With confirmation bias, it really doesn't have to give them anything at all. Trump is now "losing his mind". That idea alone negates the need for Mueller to find anything, for Congress to impeach, or for the Dems to gain a single seat in the midterms.
I look for the Dems to run in 2020 against "crazy" Trump on no agenda and nothing other than an all-out media assault on public perception of Trump's mental health. It will be nothing but a negative campaign about all the reasons you "can't" vote for him.
They previewed this line of attack already, then realized it was too soon to use it and pulled it back in.
It's the day after he's reelected that the real conspiracy theories begin.
Giuliani's point is pretty fucking obvious unless you are a dumb shit like Chuck Todd: the veracity of anything Trump says to Mueller will be assessed by Mueller and his team when it comes to whether or not to try to press charges. That poor schmuck Papadopoulos was charged with lying when all he likely did was forget when, and only by a couple of weeks, a particular conversation took place a year earlier. If you prompt me, I can remember a posts Ann Althouse did a year ago, but I could not tell you within two weeks or even a month or two when they were written or what order they appeared. This is the standard Mueller is using when charging people with lying, and that is the point Giuliani is making.
As for McGahn's cooperation, you really have to have the IQ of a pile of dogshit to not realize that he was directed by Trump to cooperate, and that he reported everything back to the White House. And the reason it was done should be obvious, too- Trump and his lawyers know the information isn't damaging to Trump or anyone on his staff, and attempts to twist it as such are going to backfire. How do I know this- because nothing McGahn said has been leaked, so my first presumption is going to be it is all pro-Trump and impossible to mischaracterize successfully.
I don't think Mueller is investigating obstruction as a crime-crime. He wants to make the case for a political crime: Trump refusing to let Javert send his administration to the guillotine.
Friedrich Nietzche is indecipherable in any language.
Untreated syphilis has a tendency to do that to people.
That and graduate school in the Humanities.
Corrupt liberal media = fake news.
And this.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/escaping-the-todd-trap.php
How do I know this- because nothing McGahn said has been leaked, so my first presumption is going to be it is all pro-Trump and impossible to mischaracterize successfully.
Yes.
Chertoff is actually the senior man here:
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/19/michael-hayden-dares-donald-trump-revoke-his-secur/
I watched Guiliani's Chuck the Toad interview and his Fox interview. They were essentially the same. He clearly had some talking points that he wanted to get out in both instances. HIs explanation of what he said to Toad about the "Truth" was quite clear and accurate. I thought he did a great job of laying the foundation for future revelations about the malfeasance at the DOJ and within the "intelligence community". I thought a lot of battle space prep was going on during both interviews. My impression is that between Nunes/Gowdy committee work and continued revelations as documents are released that there are going to be some asses hanging in the breeze and none of them will be Trump's. I concluded that Trump's team has reviewed all the withheld /redacted communications and are just waiting for the best moment to put them before the public.
Michael K underscores one of the great points Guiliani made. Just before that quote he said it was clear that the McGahn story had to be leaked from Mueller because neither he nor Trump had leaked it and certainly McGahn hadn't.
I particularly liked Guiliani drooling over the opportunity to depose Brennan; willing to take that as his compensation for his current work for Trump.
As see that Michael's quote comes from Yancey Ward. Guiliani did say essentially the same thing.
"I see" Jesus! spellcheck.
Did you notice that Guiliani was very clear in laying the use of the Steele dossier on Brennan to Reid to Comey? This seems to be a new twist to the story. Not only were the gremlins at DOJ crooked but Brennan was clearly involved, no ifs, ands or buts.
Russian Escort Says She Gave Recordings of Deripaska Discussing 2016 Election Back To Deripaska
The New York Times puff-piece designed to raise the character of White House Council Don McGahn had Giuliani spouting another lie about "truth not being truth" which is stupid on the surface but the McGahn article is a long way from the whole truth.
It seems that back in 2012, Trump was running for President. An PAC organization was formed by Roger Stone and Michael Cohen called "Should Trump Run." The organization was apparently laundering Trump corporate cash into campaign spending and when the issue came before the FEC, then-Commissioner Don McGahn helped kill the investigation.
During McGahn’s FEC tenure, . . . he helped save . . . Trump himself. In 2011, when the future president-elect was engaged in a high-profile process of considering whether to enter the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump was formally accused in an FEC complaint of violating agency regulations. The case was dismissed on a deadlocked vote of the FEC commissioners.
A four-page complaint filed by Shawn Thompson of Tampa, Fla., accused Trump of illegally funneling corporate money from his Trump Organization into an organization called ShouldTrumpRun.com. McGahn and fellow FEC Republicans Caroline Hunter and Matthew Petersen voted to block FEC staff recommendations that Trump be investigated in the matter—designated Matter Under Review (MUR) 6462.
So no, Attorney Don McGahn is not "whiter than white."
Sigh ... Counsel, not Council
sigh, is that all, fly,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/papers-saying-papadopoulos-lied-fbi-fbi-shows-either-also-lying-incompetent/
the same fec that blocked consideration of foreign moneys coming as far a field as gaza, due to shutdown verification software, on Obama's campaign website, the same fec that lois lerner blocked salvi's challenge to durbin,
that piece does illuminate my theory this whole thing was a revenge play by deripasha against manafort, interesting deripasha hit it big time thanks to mark rich's old firm, glencore, and a partnership with the husband of Belinda stronach, a close friend of bill clinton
Thinking about "Truth is Truth": The truth was that the sun revolved around the earth as center of the universe until Copernicus proved that was not the truth. A more recent example- red wine: I googled "red wine is bad for you" and the first recent article that I got said it was good for you and down two rows was a recent article that said it was bad for you. What is the truth?
gadfly obviously has the goods on Trump. When do you leave for Washington gaddie ?
Does it ever occur to you that these brain storms you have are a tumor ?
Gaddie doesn't know about this classic sting operation by the FBI and a foreign national who set up Papadopoulus by paying him cash.
[…] The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned that a man named Charles Tawil gave Papadopoulos $10,000 during a meeting in an Israeli hotel room in July 2017.
Sources familiar with the matter told TheDCNF Tawil flew to the Greek island of Mykonos to meet Papadopoulos and his now-wife, Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos. Tawil invited the pair to Israel, but Mangiante Papadopoulos stayed behind.
Papadopoulos gave the money to an attorney in Greece before traveling back to the U.S., a source told TheDCNF on the condition of anonymity. Papadopoulos was arrested at Dulles International Airport on a return trip from overseas on July 27, 2017.
Papadopoulus must have smelled a rat.
The $10k payment to Papadopoulos was almost guaranteed to be a sting operation; a set-up.
Federal agents were waiting for Papadopoulos at the airport upon his arrival and re-entry into the U.S. If Mr. Papadopoulos had carried that $10k into the U.S. without declaring a U.S. treasury filing, the FBI/DOJ would have nailed him on a treasury violation. Bringing $10,000 (or more) cash into the U.S. is a major felony; just the type of leverage Robert Mueller was looking for:
[…] Stanley said Papadopoulos arrived on a Lufthansa flight from Munich that touched down at about 7 p.m. on July 27, and the FBI intercepted him as soon as he got off the plane.
“He was arrested before he got to Customs and he was then held at the airport before being brought to a law enforcement office,” Stanley recalled. (link)
The Mueller directed federal agents were waiting for him; but P-dop left the cash in Greece. I suspect Papadopoulos likely sensed something was askew. The absence of the cash foiled the FBI’s initial plan and that’s likely why they kept him for questioning.
Boy, Mueller is really trying hard. Papadopoulos is not that smart, as we have all seen, but he is smarter than Mueller and his Keystone cops FBI.
Blogger narciso said...
sigh, is that all, fly,
The cited information that I provided has nothing to do with Papadopoulos - nor did Althouse's post. My information simply shows that Trump was being charged with money laundering in 2012 but McGahn blocked the FCC investigation.
On Papadopoulos - he will take the six month sentence before he risks Mueller's fully loaded case based upon what the Trump adviser said while in his cups, full of obfuscation and misdirection, that will keep him away from his beautiful wife for a long time.
LOL
The Poor Man's LLR Chuck gadfly giving it the old college try! And without LLR Chuck's assistance!!
Impressive attempt for the lad.
Huzzah!
Michael K: "Does it ever occur to you that these brain storms you have are a tumor ?"
It's not a tumor.
It's a "brain cloud".
As has been pointed out by Margot Cleveland, this rookie mistake from the prosecutors opens it liable to examination of the underlying 302sz
On Papadopoulos - he will take the six month sentence before he risks Mueller's fully loaded case based upon what the Trump adviser said while in his cups
I think the recommendation was zero to six. The last I heard was 30 days.
Eventually, all these cases will be thrown out as the clumsy perjury traps and money traps will be too obvious.
The MSM silence on Manafor is a Tell that all is not well in Mueller-land.
gadfly,
When you go from “blocked the investigation*”to “being charged” so quickly, it reduces your credibility.
Nobody here thought much of you before.
*paraphrasing
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा