General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharles P. Pierce: This Feels Like a Turning Point
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55032/trump-comey-russia-turning-point/This Feels Like a Turning Point
Nobody is in control of the narrative right now.
By Charles P. Pierce
May 11, 2017
When we last left Camp Runamuck, and it was only this morning, there was some question as to whether the walls of the East Room ought to be discreetly padded. Since then, and it's only been about six hours, every single element of the most recent account of why the president* iced James Comey had been refuted, much of it by the president* himself, who sat down for a whopper of an interview with Lester Holt of NBC and proceeded to make clowns out of Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Rod Rosenstein, and most conspicuously of all, Vice President Mike Pence, who must wish he were back being the incredibly unpopular governor of Indiana. It is getting very crowded under the bus.
Before addressing the interview itself, let us contemplate how truly woolly-headed stupid even doing the interview was, especially this week, when the president*'s credibility was being quite competently shredded without his help. His staff should don masks and catch rides deep into the Appalachians. His lawyers should get out of the business. It's now abundantly clear that there simply is nobody alive who can stop this guy from doing anything. I can't imagine what he'd be like as an actual defendant. He might bite the judge in the balls, or he might pin everything on Tiffany.
Anyway, remember on Wednesday, when the story was that it was Rosenstein's unsolicited bill of particulars that made the president* fire Comey? Well, it became Thursday, and we were back with the master of The Deal, who doesn't let lesser men close for him.
But first, just a little slander:
And irony takes a big swig of Virginia Gentleman, shoots up some fine Afghan H, and walks into a propeller blade.
TRUMP: Right.
HOLT: Did you ask for a recommendation?
TRUMP: What I did, is I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not
HOLT: You had made the decision before they came into the room?
TRUMP: I was going to fire Comey. There's no good time to do it, by the way. They
HOLT: Because in your letter you said, "I accepted their recommendation." So you had already made the decision?
TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.
HOLT: So there really wasn't a
TRUMP: He made a recommendation. He's highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy, the Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.
Does any of this really matter anymore? Not the cover-up, because there is a cover-up, and not because of what is being covered up, because something damned serious is being covered up. But all the persiflage that's flying around from the president*, and the staffers he sends out there to fly the Alps blindfolded, and all his congressional bobos who are fine with handing the government of the United States over to an only-partially-hinged ignoramus as long as their donors get their tax cuts and more of the planet to despoil.
These people have bargained themselves for cheap. There are rats in all their words. They are the mere husks of public servants, and they're complicit in the act of hollowing out the republic. If they remain willing to do it, I honestly don't know where we're all going. But there is, at the moment, a sense of a great turning in events. Nobody is in control of the story right now, and ordinarily, that would be a cause for concern. But chaos turns upon itself eventually, and that may be the best shot we have.
rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,416 posts)we're going in circles and we're poised to pirouette off the damn cliff.
Wednesdays
(17,342 posts)Between the years 2000 and 2008.
womanofthehills
(8,698 posts)It's happening!!
Maaattcast
(18 posts)I sure hope so but I don't think we should be so confident (see the way the GOP operated last year where they were so sure Hillary would be indicted for a he ridiculous email, when anyone paying attention could clearly see from a mile away where that inquiry was headed but the GOP still lived in fantasyland).. don't get me wrong, I think the current situation is nowhere like last years email story. Every week it seems even some members of the media who initially dismissed the Russia scandal have their positions change to think this very well could be a really big deal (the Comey firing Brought a ton of people to this position). but I also don't want to delude myself.
This may seem like a totally stupid and ignorant question but it's one I've been thinking about lately.. let's say indictments were to come down related to this and they go all the way up to the President, what are the statutes and laws that are likely to be used? Indictments for what crimes could we see? Obviously with people like Flynn I can already name a boatload of potential criminal and or civil/administrative exposure for him that range the gauntlet of various federal offenses (from lying to a federal agent, to Logan act violations, to failing to report as an agent of influence for a foreign government, to failure to disclose payments from foreign governments, emoluments clause violations which is related to the payments from foreign governments, etc.). Manafort obviously also has a ton of exposure that covers a broad range of potential crimes, including anti-corruption and tax evasion statutes related to his shady secret payments from his kremlin stooge in the Ukraine...
But what about Trump, what are potential charges Trump could face? What statutes are on th books and have broad language, making it easier for prosecutors to seek indictments? (unlike Logan act violations which have never occurred) anyone have any familiarity with national security law and what the menu of options federal prosecutors could be looking at? I know I see those of us on the left throw out the word treason, but that seems incredibly unlikely even in the best of circumstances, that's just a hard charge to prove and the rare crime that's actually spelled out in the constitution. Would electoral or campaign finance law violations be more likely than national security related charges? How about cyber-related crimes? Could Trump and/or his associates be charged with cyber crimes if its shown they knew and/or approved of the hacking of the DNC's network and that of Clinton campaign chairman john podesta's? Could federal criminal conspiracy charges arise in such a scenario (even if only having knowledge of the act or would they have to direct, encourage, fund, etc, the act?). Let's say Trump directs his associates to tell the Russians when to release certain data they had hacked, would this count as a crime? Would it fit into federal conspiracy statutes?
Sorry I know that is long winded everyone! I've just been giving a lot of thought to this lately but unfortunately don't hold a law degree or expertise in national security law!
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)is that the charge would be Obstruction of Justice, an impeachable crime. I'm sure he's guilty of other things, but that's the one that could bring him down, imho.
And welcome to DU!
cynical_idealist
(360 posts)but likely the offenses are "all of the above"
zentrum
(9,865 posts)rpannier
(24,329 posts)Considering the number of times the republikkans have claimed they are concerned about something and did nothing, it kind of rings difficult
I also remember the famed 'Fitzmas' where we were going to see some high level figure dragged from the WH under Bush. Libby was it
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Of his defenses is to knock one story down with another.
That's why tbey need a lot of investigators, but they aren't getting them. You can bet Sessions is pulling their attention to other investigations with deadliest. He may not be directly working on the Russian investigation (except for choosing the new head, of course), but he has sandbaged the investigation by pilling too many others on top of it.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)What would Mr. Trump have known about FBI discord a year ago? His ONLY awareness would likely be the conduct of the rogue NY FBI field office that undermined HRC, orchestrated by Giuliani. Like always, Trump projects. He thinks he's knocking Comey by intimating that Comey's FBI was in shambles, but in reality he's telling the world that he had a hand in the turmoil. He knows that this conduct during the campaign was illegal, but he greenlighted it, like so many other nefarious plots he has hatched and continues to hatch.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)FirstLight
(13,360 posts)I just can't even...
Have you noticed that Trump's quotes are not even complete sentences? I thought GWB was hard to listen to/read... but this guy is nearly impossible. As a journalist, we used to have conversations in the newsroom about whether it was ethical to "fix" someone's quote grammatically or if it was best to just go with the actual wording/spelling/etc. to keep the quote TRUE
I couldn't imagine having to write up an interview with this idiot!
MyOwnPeace
(16,925 posts)How could you EVER keep anything Cheeto said to keep the quote "TRUE!"
FirstLight
(13,360 posts)Ya, I forgot who we were talking about! LMAO!!!
lastlib
(23,213 posts)GEEZ, only Palin rivals him for torturing the language beyond recognition.
FirstLight
(13,360 posts)right?
What does that say for Trump voters? I guess Common Core English is working "really good, really alot...like, great"
(god, I just had a 1984 flashback too... "Doublespeak"
MyOwnPeace
(16,925 posts)#43 kept it in focus:
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)No one ever asks why we had a civil war...
rhiannon55
(2,671 posts)because there are no Trump "sentences".
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Check the transcript from that first Time interview a month or so back. It boggles the mind!
trof
(54,256 posts)I am laughing my ass off.
Cheeks (face cheeks, not ass cheeks) are streaming.
Thank you babylonsister and Charles P. Pierce.
MyOwnPeace
(16,925 posts)for the clarification (face cheeks, not ass cheeks)!
Stuart G
(38,419 posts)mopinko
(70,080 posts)he is either lying, or talking about the voices in his head.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)...operate as a tell for a lie. Not sure, but I think so.
MontanaMama
(23,307 posts)One of the myriad of "tells" that he's floating a lie. Wait...what am I saying? Everything he says is a lie! His sniffs are a sign of a more thoughtful lie...one he has to make an effort at telling.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)MontanaMama
(23,307 posts)It really is just that simple, isn't it? We're clearly overthinking it.
BumRushDaShow
(128,855 posts)That's a good SAT word!
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)pnwmom
(108,976 posts)And please nobody bother to tell me it isn't racist. It is.
https://books.google.com/books?id=77gi7CbWdtgC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=%22wooly+headed+stupid%27+racist&source=bl&ots=4JW4xigrGr&sig=iifuobYPQgczRd5Tulzrl3pna7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaj6myhOnTAhVH6mMKHXLpCoMQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&q=%22wooly%20headed%20stupid'%20racist&f=false
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)Search Results
Definition of woollyheaded. 1 : having hair suggesting wool. 2 : marked by vague or confused perception or thinking.
Woolly-headed | Definition of Woolly-headed by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woolly-headed
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,994 posts)Trump is wooly-headed.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)has racist roots. Black people were described as having wooly hair, and they were also considered to be stupid.
The link in my post connected to a discussion of the Thackery novel, Vanity Fair.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,994 posts)Expressions come from what people know, out of day to day experience.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)I don't think Pierce did it on purpose. But no one here should be justifying it, knowing the history of that phrase.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,994 posts)But it was not racist originally, to know the history of that phrase.
I don't use the perfectly good word "niggardly" even though it has no racist roots or connotations. I don't use it because it can be misunderstood.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)It's not worth the pain it may cause to others to keep that word in usage.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,994 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)...like wool-gathering, meaning meandering in thought or deed. As sheep graze among grasses and bushes, some of their wool comes off in clumps on twigs and thorns. As a valuable commodity to a small farmer, someone gets to go out and gather up these bits for eventual use.
In Harry Potter, Hermione, who likes clarity in her academic studies, complains that Divination "is a very wooly subject." Her meaning is that the subject is opaque, hard to unravel, dense -- like sheep's wool.
Language changes, it is true, but the usage you complain of is in accord with the actual meaning of the word, despite Thackeray's usage of the term to describe the hair of an Afro-British girl (daughter of a rich planter, iirc) that differs profoundly from any the other girls have seen before.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)And click on the link in my post if you're still not getting it.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)Pierce is not a bigot or a racist; your outrage might be better served on something other than a definition of a word. Watch Maddow; she's got oodles of things to be outraged about.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)I'm not saying Pierce did this deliberately. But any who is aware of the history of the term -- like you, now -- shouldn't use it or defend its use.
There are plenty of other terms that mean "stupid" that aren't also associated with the hair texture of a minority group.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)a reason. You just chose to be outraged about the wrong definition.
That adjective was applied to dt; how in any way does that make sense?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)There are several words and passages that you should include in your outrage stew.
"Camp Runamuck" WTF is this? Seems to me that Pierce is denigrating children having fun.
"the walls of the East Room ought to be discreetly padded." Here, Pierce is unashamedly mocking the mentally ill!
"iced James Comey" It seems Pierce is trying to imply that all Italians are Mafioso.
"proceeded to make clowns out of Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Rod Rosenstein, and most conspicuously of all, Vice President Mike Pence" Now the age old profession of "clowns" is under assault by Pierce.
"His staff should don masks and catch rides deep into the Appalachians." Jesus H. Christ!!! What is this? It seems Pierce is attacking an entire region. I am sure the "mask" thing is something derogatory to someone, but I can't put my finger on it right now.
"He might bite the judge in the balls, or he might pin everything on Tiffany." This is clearly "in your face" sexism!!!! Why does the judge have to be a man????????
In short, you should be ashamed for letting so many hateful, bigoted words and phrases escape your outrage radar.
Cheers!
WheelWalker
(8,955 posts)ovines in the barn... I must admit the thought occurred to me that he wasn't referring to their ilk
moda253
(615 posts)Definition of woollyheaded
1
: having hair suggesting wool
2
: marked by vague or confused perception or thinking
mcar
(42,302 posts)bora13
(860 posts)there are people reading part numbers off of bolts and screws.
calimary
(81,220 posts)I love him-love him-love him!
There's been some totally extraordinary writing since the emergence of trump. (HAH!!! My fingers automatically typed out "emergency" there just now! Even when my brain's distracted for an instant, my fingers still know! Heeheehee!)
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Just before I read it, I had listened to Olbermann's latest, and THAT was most chilling.
Very frightening that Trump saw no reason at all not to go talk at the FBI, after the firing, and no reason at all not to have the tv interview.
"Ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille"
zentrum
(9,865 posts)kentuck
(111,079 posts)But, he wants you to know, that "someone else" made the recommendation.
LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)"These people have bargained themselves for cheap. There are rats in all their words. They are the mere husks of public servants, and they're complicit in the act of hollowing out the republic. If they remain willing to do it, I honestly don't know where we're all going. But there is, at the moment, a sense of a great turning in events. Nobody is in control of the story right now, and ordinarily, that would be a cause for concern. But chaos turns upon itself eventually, and that may be the best shot we have."
I'm disgusted with the whole damned bunch. The WH is a freak show.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,110 posts)rpannier
(24,329 posts)There's only room in dumpster fires world for THE SHOWBOAT
and that is the guy squatting in the White House
bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)deeply disturbed individual
bagimin
(1,333 posts)My lord! recommended.
llmart
(15,536 posts)just for the laugh I got from "Camp Runamuck" and the fact that he used the word "persiflage".
If I don't laugh I'll lose my mind trying to wrap my mind around what has befallen our once great country.
Mountain Mule
(1,002 posts)I really enjoyed this part: "His staff should don masks and catch rides deep into the Appalachians. His lawyers should get out of the business. It's now abundantly clear that there simply is nobody alive who can stop this guy from doing anything. I can't imagine what he'd be like as an actual defendant. He might bite the judge in the balls, or he might pin everything on Tiffany."
My family originally comes from the Eastern Kentucky Mountains, and I got this visual of desperate DC city slickers running around, tripping over stills and trying to hide in abandoned coal shafts with coonhounds and angry local moonshiners hot on their trail. Lord, lord! It IS good to laugh now and then!
NoMoreRepugs
(9,412 posts)they created does anyone really think Rethug congresscritters are going to do anything about it until they see how they fare in the 2018 gerrymandered voter suppressed elections? I sure don't.
CousinIT
(9,239 posts)... CONGRESS. The issue is, they REFUSE to do it!