Hey, Mom! The Explanation.

Here's the permanent dedicated link to my first Hey, Mom! post and the explanation of the feature it contains.

Friday, June 9, 2017

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #703 - Comey at the Senate - Trump is A Lying Liar Who Lies

Hey, Mom! Talking to My Mother #703 - Comey at the Senate - Trump is A Lying Liar Who Lies

Hi Mom,

So, THREE shares today. Get ready. This one's kind of long.

Yes, I know this is somewhat lazy of me. I was going to try for original content. Really I was. But this is Sunday as I write these for Friday, and so there's that. Also, I knew John Scalzi would write about the Comey hearing in the Senate, and so, when I read what he wrote, I was like, YUP. That's about what I would have said, minus a few things that Scalzi knows that I do not. I will not paint myself a super knowledgeable about politics, and I often prefer to stay out of it.

According to Scalzi, this, which I like so much I added it to the title of this entry:

"Assuming Comey was truthful and reasonably accurate in his testimony, and to be clear I suspect he was, then it basically tells us what we already knew, which is that Donald Trump is a lying liar who lies, and that he rather stupidly tried to intervene in the Michael Flynn/Russia investigation, and in a way that’s very probably actual obstruction of justice."

Adding to Scalzi amusing remarks, which I like because of the way he interviews himself to perpetuate his humor and to avoid any kind of formal structure, I re-posted the link Scalzi shares to Ana Marie Cox article on how Trump is a predator (like a sexual predator). But then I also came across this great summary and a close look at the Comey testimony. I had found this Brane Space blog before, but now, it's in my rss feed.

These three articles are well worth the reading time.

If we lived in a world in which justice was served, Trump would not be able to continue as president. After all, Nixon resigned for his crimes. And we don't want Trump to resign. We want the whole crooked GOP, super fund, glory mongering, profiteering, 1% of 1% serving, self-congratulating lunatics to be removed from office and just start again. (The chorus of "Could We Start Again, Please" from Jesus Christ Superstar comes to mind.) But we don't live in that world. If anything, the Comey hearing just shows us that Trump can do whatever he wants, lie as much as he wants, and nothing will change other than our news feeds being filled with posturing, spin doctoring, and red herring misdirections.


And people wonder why I just stick to news about sports and comic books.

This next image again because it never grows old.

FROM - http://whatever.scalzi.com/2017/06/09/comey-at-the-senate/

Comey at the Senate

Hey, Scalzi! It’s me, your fictional interlocutor!
Oh, God, you again.
You know why I’m here!
This is about the James Comey testimony yesterday, isn’t it?
Fine, let’s do this.
James Comey testimony! Your thoughts!
Well, assuming Comey was truthful and reasonably accurate in his testimony, and to be clear I suspect he was, then it basically tells us what we already knew, which is that Donald Trump is a lying liar who lies, and that he rather stupidly tried to intervene in the Michael Flynn/Russia investigation, and in a way that’s very probably actual obstruction of justice. And he implied another thing I suspect most of us already knew, which is that the Russians have their hands up the asses of a whole lot of people in the Trump administration, including very likely Jeff Sessions. So, I can’t say that I was entirely surprised by anything Comey said, but it’s gratifying to have it in the congressional record.
Do you still think James Comey wasn’t very good at his job?
Kind of? I think what his testimony solidified for me is that James Comey was probably pretty good at the day to day minutiae of his former gig, and also that within the context of that gig he was pretty ethical. But I also think he made some high-profile bad calls, and that very same desire for ethical action caused him to exacerbate rather than mitigate some of those bad calls.
At this point I’ve gotten used to thinking of Comey as something of a tragic figure, whose greatest virtue — a desire to act ethically and above the usual boundaries of politics in the execution of his duties — ended up precipitating a national and global crisis. Because make no mistake that we have a President Trump in large part because of him. I suspect that eats at him even if he believes all his actions during 2016 were ultimately correct and appropriate, as the head of the FBI.
(This is not to say a President Hillary Clinton would not have had her challenges. But only a fool or a committed partisan (and there’s some considerable overlap there) at this point believes a Clinton administration would have been the gross and obvious ethical Superfund site the Trump administration has been from day one.)
Let me put it this way: I think Comey could have made better decisions in his role as FBI director. I also think his testimony was probably, pun intended, unimpeachable.
But Trump says Comey’s testimony vindicated him!
Sure, but Trump says a lot of stupid things, doesn’t he? If by “vindicated” he means “established him as a liar and obstructor of justice,” then yes, he’s entirely vindicated. Otherwise it’s just Trump lying as fast as he can, which pretty much goes to Comey’s point directly, doesn’t it.
Trump’s lawyer says he going to file a complaint against Comey for leaking. Thoughts?
I mean, okay, but so what? First: Comey, then a private citizen, giving a friend a non-classified memo recounting a conversation he had with the president, and encouraging the friend to share it? That’s not actually a leak, now, is it? Comey was already out of a job. Also, filing a complaint will do what, precisely? Is the Department of Justice going to fire him again? A double-secret firing? It doesn’t appear that Comey did anything illegal, and complaining to the Department of Justice about it seems likely to result in exactly one thing: The lawyer complaining to the Department of Justice about it. Like many things Trump does, this is a lot of noise and movement but no actual result.
And I suspect the Trump people know that’s all that’s going to come out of it, which is why Trump and his party pals, like Corey Lewandowski, are mostly resorting to asserting that if Comey were a real man, he would have talked to the press himself rather than having a pal do it, harumph, harumph. Which leads me to two thoughts. One, I’m sure James Comey is gonna stay up nights worrying what an asshole like Corey Lewandowski thinks about him, vis a vis manhood or anything else. Two, this is (one reason) why the Trump people are stupid: They’ve confused successfully executing on a strategy with weakness. It doesn’t matter whether Lewandowski thinks Comey is “man enough,” because no matter what he or Trump think about Comey’s manhood, Comey’s actions resulted in Robert Mueller appointed as a special investigator. Which is to say Comey was man enough to dunk on Trump.
Thoughts on the senators who questioned Comey?
I felt sad about John McCain, who was clearly not all there. Otherwise I think the GOP senators spent a lot of time trying to convince themselves and others that Trump saying “I hope” didn’t mean he was really trying to obstruct the investigation, and to blame Comey for not forcefully telling Trump “No, what you’re asking for is totally illegal” in the moment. On the former, Comey pretty much demolished the “I hope” argument by quoting Henry II with regard to Thomas a Becket, thus sending a thrill through the hearts of history nerds everywhere, and on the latter, here, read this by Ana Marie Cox, which is entirely on point. The Democratic senators were more on message, as is to be expected.
What about Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton? The GOP senators seemed very interested in that.
Sure, anything to take the conversation away from Trump and obstruction of justice. I get why the GOP senators wanted to talk about that, even aside using it as a way to run down the clock on Comey’s testimony. But here’s a thing, which is that Hillary Clinton’s not the president, whereas Trump is. So I think most people are a smidgen more interested in what he’s up to, than a woman who is no longer Attorney General talking to the husband of a woman who is not sitting behind the Resolute desk in the White House. Maybe that’s just me.
So do you think this is finally it? The thing that gets Trump impeached?
Trump’s not getting impeached.
But… obstruction of justice! 
The House is as likely to vote to impeach Trump on this or indeed any other illegal/unethical thing he’s actually currently doing as I am to sprout a peach tree out of my tailbone. This is your occasional reminder that today’s GOP has no moral or ethical center, and apparently works under the belief that the entire point to the life of the average American citizen is to fork over their progressively declining wages to large companies to make the very rich that much richer. Trump’s helping with that goal, so why would they get in the way with that? Trump could tromp into the White House rose garden, club Sean Spicer to death live on Fox and Friends, and then skull-fuck the bloody corpse, chortling about his electoral college victory all the while, and all you would get out of the GOP is Paul Ryan’s patented little grimace, and the general argument that it’s the president’s prerogative to skull-fuck the corpse of any of his staff, so why is the mainstream media making such a big deal about it.
So, yeah. Don’t pick out your glittery impeachment pants just yet. You’re gonna have to wait for 2019 at the earliest for that.
Also, for the record: I do not endorse anyone, including but not limited to the President of the United States, doing anything to Sean Spicer to bring about his death or even his mild physical discomfort, in the White House rose garden or indeed anywhere else, much less then skull-fucking his corpse, bloody or otherwise, on live or recorded television, streaming on the internet or even in private. Please do not kill Sean Spicer, ever. He’s already dead inside. That should be enough for anybody.
So what do we get out of the Comey hearing?
You get the satisfaction out of confirming that Donald Trump is a real piece of shit both as a human being and as a president. Congratulations!
Late breaking news! Trump calls Comey a liar!
This is a surprise?
He says he’ll testify under oath about what Comey said!
Who said that?
Someone on Twitter!
Oh, okay, then.
You seem skeptical.
Even if Trump did promise testify under oath (which, if his personal lawyers are competent — big if — they would never in a second advise he ever do ever in the history of ever, ps: never ever ever), and he somehow didn’t back out of it (which if his lawyers are competent they would try to get him to do), the chances he wouldn’t lie his ass off even under oath is pretty slim, because he’s Donald Trump, and what he does is lie his ass right off. Because he’s always done it and it’s worked so far, up to and including getting him into the White House, so why change strategies?
Look: No one — no one — believes Trump more than they believe Comey. The best you can say is his partisans either don’t think it’s important that Trump lies out of his ass all the time, or they’re confident he’ll just keep getting away with it. So, sure: Get Trump under oath. He’ll lie. And when he lies, because why shouldn’t he, it’s always worked before, let’s see what happens then. Let’s see what the GOP says about it then.
Uh… that seems to be ending on a down note, there.
You’re the one asking questions, man.

FROM - http://www.mtv.com/news/3019180/comeys-testimony-reminds-us-that-trump-is-a-predator/



With the possibility of impeachment and questions about obstruction of justice lingering in the air, many observers drew ready parallels between today’s congressional testimony from James Comey to that of John Dean during the Watergate hearings. But as Comey spoke, the shape of the former FBI director's narrative brought an entirely different moment in American political history to my mind: not John Dean’s appearance before Congress, but Anita Hill’s.
To be completely honest, I didn’t just think of Hill’s experience, either. I thought of mine. Indeed, anyone who has been the target of sexual harassment or sexual abuse would have trouble not hearing echoes of their own story in what Comey had to say about the president. When I noted on Twitter that Trump’s behavior with Comey sounded a lot like that of a sexual predator, my timeline exploded with grim confirmation. And I wasn’t the only one making that connection.
Comey said Trump lured him to the White House in January by implying there would be a dinner party. But it turned out it was just the two of them “at a small oval table in the middle of the Green Room.” (I’m sort of surprised their legs didn’t touch.) During that dinner Trump made vague but ominous demands, implying that Comey’s job was on the line if he didn’t comply. Just replace “loyalty” in this request with the other thing that Trump thinks people owe him because he’s a star:
A few moments later, the president said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.
Comey added that Trump later made excuses to be alone with him. The president went out of his way to let Comey know he was being watched, under the thin excuse of calling “just to tell me I was doing an awesome job.” Trump was persistent and intentionally obtuse in his requests, cloaking his predation in false familiarity and phrases that could be taken as jokes or as threats (“Because I have been very loyal to you,” Trump allegedly told Comey, “very loyal; we had that thing you know.”)
Comey’s responses to this campaign of harassment were disturbingly familiar as well: In order to keep his job and not make the situation even more awkward, Comey let Trump think he was getting his way. “It is possible we understood the phrase 'honest loyalty' differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further,” Comey testified in his written statement, even though, as he added today, what “[my] common sense told me is he’s looking to get something for granting my request for staying in the job.”
Comey even suffered what sounds like a mild version of a middle-of-the-night panic that survivors grind their way through, although — in an important departure from the analogy — his late-night revelation was ultimately hopeful, as he believed that if Trump actually did tape their encounter, the evidence would vindicate him. Many survivors don’t even dare hold out such hope.
Indeed, Comey’s stern confidence in his version of events is where his story and, all too often, the experience of assault and harassment survivors sadly differ. This is not to say that Trump didn’t go to the same playbook that a harasser would after his target had escaped and was poised to tell that side of the story: Comey’s a “nutjob,” remember? A “showboater.” He might as well have asked what Comey was wearing, too.
Senate questioners on both sides of the aisle gave even more weight to the notion that all abuses of power look alike in the dark, and that it is the target’s responsibility to make a harasser behave. Dianne Feinstein wondered, “You’re big, you’re strong… Why didn’t you stop him?” Marco Rubio wondered, basically, “If it was so bad, why didn’t you say something then?”:
At the time did you say anything to the president about, that is not an appropriate request, or did you tell the White House counsel that is not an appropriate request, someone needs to go tell the president that he can't do these things?
Speaker Paul Ryan quickly responded to the hearing with a boys-will-be-boys defense, noting that Trump is “unfamiliar with protocol” and “new to this.” Yesterday, Chris Christie spun us with a version of “locker room talk,” calling Comey's experiences with Trump “normal New York City conversation.”
Some might be uncomfortable emphasizing the parallel between Trump’s behavior with a powerful man like Comey and past allegations of his sexual mistreatment of women. There are of course important differences between the two scenarios — perhaps most notably in how little doubt Comey seems to have about himself. While, like many survivors before him, Comey did seem to feel some guilt about his interactions with the president and acknowledged that maybe he should have done more to stop or change them, that he had any guilt at all speaks to the grossness of Trump’s infraction, the force of the influence that Trump wielded as a weapon.
There is always something obscene about the abuse of power, even if it isn’t sexual. Authoritarians count on their subjects to internalize this obscenity and feel reluctant to comment on it. We sometimes giggle about the violations when we should be shouting. It was easy to joke about similarities before the details emerged: Headlines such as “Comey asked Sessions not to leave him alone with Trump” practically begged for a lighthearted “Same. —Women” response.
But the richness of Comey’s specific recollections should force us to grapple with the dark reality before us: We elected a sexual predator to the highest office in the land, and he is continuing to act like one.


AND FROM - http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-comey-exposes-trump-as.html

Friday, June 9, 2017

James Comey Exposes Trump As The Pathological Liar He Is

Former FBI director James Comey testifies in front of the Senate intelligence committee Thursday in Washington.
James Comey, in calm, coherent voice, exposed all of Trump's lying and chicanery despite Repub efforts to distort his testimony.

First, let's start with the asshole-in-chief's imbecilic tweet this a.m., proving once more - as Karl Rove noted in a WSJ column yesterday  - Trump's tweets are now totally devoid of facts which is why his sorry administration is on the shoals of collapse.   Mr. Ginger-face Orang thus tweeted:

Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!

But this imbecile has no clue that there is no "complete vindication", period, It is a red herring, as former DOJ specialist Matt Miller has emphasized. I will get to the details of that below. As for Comey being a "leaker" as all the FOX-head idiots (as on 'Fox n' Freinds' this a.m.)  are screeching, uh no, you cannot be a "leaker" if: 1) You are no longer employed by the gov't (e.g. fired by the Dumpster), and 2) the material consists of your own unclassified  memos. Comey was intelligent enough to know that he could disseminate his own memos through a friend (a Columbia Univ. law prof), and that their classification would only follow after the fact, i.e. after giving them to special counsel Robert Mueller.

But do the Trumpite assholes and dingbats know any of that? Of course not, from their two bit cheesy weasel lawyer Kasowitz, to Trump - as Liar in chief - to  the FOX n Friends bubble heads - they know nothing, Kasowitz himself showed he's in over his head when he claimed Comey  "has admitted he is one of these leakers" and had "leaked privileged information" by giving his memos to his friend to disseminate.  But one's own memos can't be "privileged" information, because they are one's own unclassified property, created for one's own  purposes. In James Comey's case, he had the prescience to know that in dealing with an unstable liar he had better record every encounter for possible reference and use later. Indeed, precisely for a potential Senate Intel hearing which one didn't have to be a mind reader to foresee.

Hence, the memos' creation has a reasonable basis for future utility and so they couldn't be "leaked". If Trump is relying on this two bit 'ambulance chaser'  weasel Mark Kasowitz to rescue him from the maw of Bob Mueller, well, he's really in trouble, not to mention desperate. This isn't another fake casino bankruptcy case to weasel out of paying money owed, it's a full on federal investigation into possible conspiracy with a hostile foreign power, not to mention obstruction of justice.  Even former Watergate reporter Bob Woodward stated this morning ('CBS Early Show') that what Comey did with his memos was "totally open and honest" even surpassing how "Deep Throat" (Mark Feldt) helped Carl Bernstein and himself expose Watergate.

Truth be told, in a battle for credibility James Comey wins hands down, having the courage to face the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath. And in a battle with Trump he prevails, given we already know the hundreds of whoppers unleashed by Trump, from his inauguration crowds being the "biggest ever", to "the largest electoral vote win since Reagan", to naming Ted Cruz' dad as part of the JFK assassination, to asserting millions of illegals gave Hillary the popular vote victory,  to denying that he asked Comey to a dinner.  And the capper, in Comey's own words:

"The administration chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the work force had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies plain and simple."

It was after this Trump defamation of Comey and the FBI that he decided to share his memo content with a friend to give to the press. Comey chose not to do so himself because he didn't want to create a media circus on his front lawn, especially as he and his wife planned a getaway from the political ruckus in the wake of the firing.  In his words, when asked by Roy Blunt why he didn't do it himself:

"Because I was worried that the media was camping at the end of my driveway. And I worried it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach if it was I who gave it to the media. So I asked my friend, 'make sure this gets out'"

Comey also called out the Trump lie that he was fired on account of interference in the Clinton campaign - as Trump first claimed- before he changed his line (in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt) that he just wanted Comey gone. For Comey, the real reason for his firing - as most sentient citizens surmised - was his continued pursuit of the Russia investigation.  In all, Comey directly (using the word "lied")  or by inference,  called out at least five occasions for Trump lies.

Make no mistake, either, it is the guy who testifies under oath and already displays a pattern of integrity  -unlike the sorry ass Donald-  who wins the Truth battle. When Dumpster Trump volunteers to willingly be questioned under oath, like James Comey, we can make a marginal allowance that maybe at least for a half hour he'd rather speak the truth than commit perjury. But until then no benefit of  any doubt can be permitted.

Fearless, poised and articulate in the Senate Intel Hearing hot seat, former FBI Director Comey spoke truth to power as he meticulously delivered measured responses that exposed Donald Trump as the disreputable lying worm he truly is. And he did this in the face of several attempts (such as from Roy Blunt (MO),  James Lankford (OK) and Tom Cotton (AR) to try to redirect the theme to Trump's having been told he "was not under investigation".   None of these R- dopes processing at all that it doesn't mean he is "innocent" or "vindicated". Oh no.

With prescience, Comey had submitted a template for his appearance  in written testimony prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday.  What it showed clearly is that Trump’s entreaties continued for months, in unexpected phone calls and awkward meetings -  at least three of which Comey interpreted as "directives" to set him free of any scrutiny.   The Senate Republicans honed in on this aspect with their questions, i.e. "Did President Trump give you an order or merely say he hoped you'd do it?"   Failing to note that when a mugger holds a .44 to your head and whispers "I hope you will cooperate and hand over that wallet." there is no dispute that he isn't giving you an option.  Yet, the 'pukes, congenital dissemblers that they are,  beat the explicit wording to the point some lazy viewers might have been led to ask 'What's all the fuss about?' Despite the fact that it was Mr. Comey who was actually there and had to take into account the atmosphere, Trump's  bearing and the "nature" of the man confronting him. (Which we now know is warped and mentally unstable.) Anyone who's ever confronted a psychopath would grasp what I mean, those who haven't would not.

Hence, Comey's interpretation of Trump's words as a "directive" was spot on, and based on decades of experience, as well as knowing how Mob bosses operate with their demands for patronage.  Again, if a Mafia Don has you in his favorite pizza parlor and says - while lighting his cigar: "I do hope you will cooperate and pay the weekly protection money" you are not going to debate him.

As for the other dead horse the Pukes beat, i.e. that Trump "wasn't under investigation",  that was easily dispelled by former Justice Dept. prosecutor Matt Miller. He observed that the notion Trump "wasn't under investigation" is a red herring. The FBI had been investigating Trump's campaign, his organizations, for which Donald Trump operates as head honcho, decision maker. Whenever the FBI investigates any organization - whether drug cartel, a major bank or a campaign,  they look at wrongdoing wherever it is. Their M.O. is always to find people who are targets, assemble evidence against them, and then move up the chain with what they have. For example, they would question Mike Flynn and extract as much as they can before asking:  'What do you have to tell us about Donald Trump?' In other words, it's a progressive process. That's how it works. So any major player in an organization under investigation can't possibly be publicly exonerated or vindicated before the investigation is completed. He CAN be informed privately that he isn't under any investigation at that time - as Comey did with Trump.

In Trump's case it only means they (FBI)  didn't have evidence right now that he committed wrongdoing. It doesn't mean they will never have any forevermore.   The onerous 'pukes (as well as weasel lawyer Kasowitz) don't seem to get the difference, or maybe don't wish to. Also, prematurely "vindicating" a suspect in his presumed innocence is always unwise because it could trigger a duty to correct down the line.  This is something the FBI always seeks to avoid given it calls into question their methods and hence public confidence in the Bureau. Say Comey or another FBI chief actually did that, then it turned out Trump was tagged much later as central to collusion. - it would quickly become a fiasco. At the very least, the agency now has thrust upon it the "duty to correct" i.e.  whatever it led Trump to believe earlier and with the potential for leaks as well. This is a situation the FBI never wants to get into.  Or (further) to have to later tell a media source, "No comment" in response to questions asked, say about Trump being told he's now guilty when he was declared "clear" before.

So again, this was a point the Republican Senators - including Blunt, Lankford and Cotton never got, nor did Mark Kasowtiz. . They never grasped that Comey telling Trump he wasn't under investigation was only for that time, not in perpetuity.  Even Bob Woodward this morning didn't seem to grasp the implications, insisting "Comey should have gone public, assuring people Trump was not under investigation". No, that would have been the worst thing to do, especially given when all the threads are exhausted (Woodward admitted we only have about "ten percent of all the answers")  Trump will likely be found guilty on several counts and possibly indicted by Mueller's special investigation. (Mueller can seek an indictment before the grand jury and prosecute the case in federal court.)

The most outstanding criminally implicit behavior of Trump, as noted by Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) -  as part of "consciousness of guilt" - i.e. having AG Sessions, VP Mike Pence and Jared Kushner leave the room on Feb. 14th . This was the meeting when Trump confronted Comey about the Flynn issue. ("I hope you can see your way to letting this go". ) Guilt is imputed given that no innocent person asks others to leave a room before engaging a law enforcement official on an investigation, in this case the head of the FBI. As Comey put it, in response to a question by Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM):

"A really significant fact to me is the meeting on February 14. So why would you kick everybody out of the Oval office? Why would you kick out the attorney general, the vice-President, the chief of staff to talk to me if it was about something else?"

In other words, as Ted Lieu has observed, Trump had to be conscious of his own guilt to do this, it was emphatically not innocuous or "normal" to be asked to be left alone with the FBI director.

When Trump appeared at an evangelical confab yesterday he blabbed:

"We're under siege, you understand that."

Never telling those "faithful"  assembled the  real truth that THEY are the ones under siege via his policies, including now a 2018 budget proposal to cut disabled veterans' benefits, as well as health care. (Which he is now gutting from the inside by removing federal support subsidies.)

What did Comey likely get wrong in his testimony? When he dismissed a NY Times story from Feb. 14th, headlined 'Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence', as "almost entirely wrong".   But as one of the journalists (Michael S. Schmidt) stated last night (MSNBC interview) the Times is standing by this story. Schmidt noted Comey "did not explain why he thinks the story is inaccurate" and Schmidt and co-writers point out in the story that since it ran many further contacts have emerged, i.e. between Carter Page, Jared Kushner and Russians and different items collected by intelligence community. (Even DNI James Clapper said at the time that the Trump-Russian contacts had occurred, but were "sensitive".)

Most likely basis for Comey's rejection of the Times' story? Semantics! Disputing that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers were actual "intelligence officers" because that  did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.” Other American agencies have a broader definition, especially when it comes to Russia. This somewhat reminds me of the arguments with pro-Warren Commission trolls over who is a CIA, and who is not a CIA agent. (The Warrenites tended to exclude all contract agents, like Clay Shaw.)

In other words, a tweedle-dee vs. tweedle-dum distinction as the basis for rejection.

See also:





Reflect and connect.

Have someone give you a kiss, and tell you that I love you.

I miss you so very much, Mom.

Talk to you tomorrow, Mom.


- Days ago = 705 days ago

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1706.09 - 10:10

NOTE on time: When I post late, I had been posting at 7:10 a.m. because Google is on Pacific Time, and so this is really 10:10 EDT. However, it still shows up on the blog in Pacific time. So, I am going to start posting at 10:10 a.m. Pacific time, intending this to be 10:10 Eastern time. I know this only matters to me, and to you, Mom. But I am not going back and changing all the 7:10 a.m. times. But I will run this note for a while. Mom, you know that I am posting at 10:10 a.m. often because this is the time of your death.
Post a Comment