It’s news, I guess, theoretically. And it’s about to happen. So, let’s talk about it.
[guest post by Dana]
Donald Trump has accepted an invitation from Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to meet privately with him in Mexico City this morning. According to President Nieto, he wanted the opportunity to “promote the interests of Mexico in the world and, principally, to protect Mexicans wherever they are.”
This meeting comes before Trump’s big immigration speech in Phoenix tonight where he is expected to clarify his immigration policy.
It’s anybody’s guess what he will have to say about the vexing issue.
[guest post by Dana]
They keep finding these deleted emails that are anything but wedding plans or yoga routines, in spite of Hillary testifying under oath that she turned over all work-related emails in 2014. As I read somewhere, they find damning emails, but they never find that any laws have been broken. This is what it means to be Clinton:
The State Department says about 30 emails involving the 2012 attack on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, are among the thousands of Hillary Clinton emails recovered during the FBI’s recently closed investigation into her use of a private server.
Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta Tuesday that an undetermined number of the emails among the 30 were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton to the State Department. The agency said it would need until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released.
The hearing was held in one of several lawsuits filed by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which has sued over access to government records involving the Democratic presidential nominee.
None of the major networks covered this latest discovery of deleted emails on last night’s news.
I’ll add here that it is also being reported this morning that Hillary Clinton continued to email classified information even after leaving the State Dept.
The three-minute clip is worth listening to in its entirety, to hear the caller rip up Rush with the facts:
Here is the transcript:
CALLER: Thanks for taking my call, Rush. I just wanted to comment on your comment that you just made about Trump and his illegal — and his deportation shift. I just distinctly heard you say it’s not considered a flip-flop. And I just want to tell you, you’re doing a disservice to all of us Republican primary voters who didn’t vote for Trump that are struggling with whether or not to vote for Trump, when you diminish the impact of his single policy that he ridiculed all other candidates for for over a year.
I mean, John Kasich classically said on the debate stage — he laughingly said — “Come on, folks, this isn’t serious. He’s not gonna deport everyone.” And Trump went ahead and ridiculed everybody who wasn’t for deportation. And for all of us who were saying that it was a con job, that it was a snow job — that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, that he’s unqualified to be president — for you to sit here and say that now that he adopts all the positions of everybody he ridiculed as not even being a flip-flop and it’s no big deal? This is why so many Republican voters have such a hard time going to the con man!
RUSH: Well, in the first place, I don’t think Trump has actually changed that much from what I he said. And I am also not aware that he told every Republican they had to agree with him or else whatever he was gonna do to them, he did. I’m just… The point of… What is it that you’re —
CALLER: With all due respect, Rush, on Chuck Todd’s show he specifically said when asked the question, “You mean, you’re gonna rip the families apart?” He said, “No, I’m not gonna rip the families apart. They all have to go, even the US citizen children.” He then got in the middle of the debate between Marco and Ted. When Ted wanted legalization and Marco wanted citizenship as part of a comprehensive plan, he said, “They’re both wrong, they’re both being absurd, they all have to go or we don’t have a nation of laws.” Come on! You were watching the debates as the rest of us were! You know exactly what he said and you know exactly how he ridiculed everybody on that stage!
RUSH: Yeah? Well, I guess the difference is — or not the difference. I guess the thing is… This is gonna enrage you. You know, I could choose a path here to try to mollify you, but —
RUSH: — I never took him seriously on this.
CALLER: But 30 million — or 15 or 10 million… Excuse me. Ten million people did.
RUSH: Yeah, and they still don’t care! My point is they still don’t care! They’re gonna stick with him no matter what.
I’m the mayor of Realville, and I do happen to react literally to things. So when people say things, I interpret what they say literally. I’m not gonna assume they don’t mean it. I’m not gonna assume they’re exaggerating. When somebody says something, I’m gonna believe they mean it. And if they say, “There’s no way we could do it! We couldn’t do it. We couldn’t round up people. We couldn’t find them! We couldn’t separate the families.” Well, there are people that know how to do it, and have been doing it for a long time. All we would have to do is ask them how they do it.
So is he just saying that he didn’t take Trump seriously on the issue? If so, did he ever say this? It appears not. He sure did seem to believe him on the whole “Mexico will pay for the wall” thing:
— Tim Miller (@Timodc) August 30, 2016
This is not to trash Rush specifically, but the phenomenon of putting your faith in a huckster, and then sticking with him even when he nullifies the very reasons you initially believed in him.
Anthony Weiner has deleted his Twitter account amid a third sexting scandal. (Is it really a scandal if it’s this predictable?) This one features a shot of his crotch as he lies in bed next to his son. He’s a charmer.
This is baby-sitting — Anthony Weiner-style.
While his wife, Huma Abedin, travels the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the disgraced ex-congressman has been sexting with a busty brunette out West — and even sent her a lurid crotch shot with his toddler son in the picture, The Post has learned.
The stay-at-home cad shot the revealing photo while discussing massage parlors “near my old apartment” shortly after 3 a.m. on July 31, 2015, a screenshot of the exchange shows.
Weiner was clearly aroused by his conversation with the 40-something divorcee when he abruptly changed the subject.
“Someone just climbed into my bed,” Weiner wrote.
“Really?” she responded.
Weiner then hit “Send” on the cringe-inducing image, which shows a bulge in his white, Jockey-brand boxer briefs and his son cuddled up to his left, wrapped in a light-green blanket.
“You do realize you can see you[r] Weiner in that pic??” the woman wrote.
If daleyrocks still posted here, I’d probably post a picture or two of the woman on the receiving end of these missives, for Importang Journomalistic Purposes. But he’s not, so I won’t. Click over to the Post story (second link above) if that sort of thing interests you.
I generally don’t like to speculate about the marriages of people in public life. It just seems that there could be so much we don’t know. But here, it seems awfully hard to resist the obvious conclusion: Huma is staying married to this incorrigibly dishonest sex fiend because she thinks it will benefit her politically.
Whatever does Hillary see in her?
UPDATE: Looks like more than a few of you missed my droll comparison of Hillary and Huma, each standing by her horndog man for political reasons. In any event, joke’s on me: word is Huma has announced that she and Weiner are separating.
Many of you are familiar with long-time reader and commenter AZ Bob (“Arizona Bob”). Bob has retired from the District Attorney’s Office, and had his retirement party last night at his beautiful home. Mrs. P. and I were fortunate enough to be invited and to watch AZ Bob’s band crank out some tunes. (After the party was over he was kind enough to show me the main riff to Free’s “All Right Now” and let me play that riff on his guitar.) A musical highlight of the night was when a Bureau Director (a high-level administrator in the office, and my boss three levels up) played and sang the Georgia Satellites’ “Keep Your Hands to Yourself.” (It’s a highlight not just because it was good, but because it’s a lot of fun to watch your boss sing!) I have the video but have not yet asked my boss’s permission to post it. I did ask Bob if I could post a video of his band, and he agreed. So here are a few seconds of Bob playing a guitar solo. Join me in congratulating Bob on his retirement. And please note the Arizona shirt he is wearing.
[guest post by Dana]
This just makes me laugh. Everything about this election has been so over-the-top and off-the-wall, why not throw in Donald Trump’s doctor as well?
During an interview with NBC News, Dr.
Nick Bornstein discussed his writing style and how he came to write his letter attesting to Trump’s excellent health:
“If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” Bornstein wrote.
Asked how he could justify the hyperbole, Bornstein said, “I like that sentence to be quite honest with you and all the rest of them are either sick or dead.”…
The doctor said he would not normally use such over-the-top language in a letter for a patient but he made an exception for Trump — who just two weeks before had tweeted that the doctor’s assessment would show “perfection.”
“I think I picked up his kind of language and then just interpreted it to my own,” he said.
Bornstein said that after he was asked to write the letter, he thought about what he would say all day but did not type it out until the last minute as a black car sent by Trump waited to collect it. He said he didn’t even proofread it.
He summed up Trump’s health with this nugget:
“His health is excellent, especially his mental health,” he said in an exclusive interview at his Park Avenue office.
What a relief that the uh, comprehensive medical reports from both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s doctors attest to their excellent health and fitness for office. So glad there’s nothing to be seriously concerned about with either of the people who hope to become our next president…
New York Times: We’re Looking For A Few Good Editors To Maintain Our Political Viewpoint …In The Name of Good Journalism, Of Course
[guest post by Dana]
You already know the sort of “editors” they are looking for.
First, a climate change editor:
Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.
The New York Times is a leader in covering climate change. Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe.
We are looking for an editor to lead this dynamic new group. We want someone with an entrepreneurial streak who is obsessed with finding new ways to connect with readers and new ways to tell this vital story.
The coverage should encompass: the science of climate change; the politics of climate debates; the technological race to find solutions; the economic consequences of climate change; and profiles of fascinating characters enmeshed in the issues.
Second, an education editor:
An investigation of the decline of the storied City University of New York. A narrative showing how charter schools’ promise has fallen short in Detroit. A disturbing video showing a teacher harshly berating a student. A stark essay about a black mother’s choice to send her daughter to a functionally segregated school — only to have gentrification take it away.
Education has been a premier subject of New York Times coverage for decades, from the insanity of elite college admission to accountability journalism on classroom inequity. Now The Times is creating an education team to own this critical story on all platforms and for multiple audiences.
The ideal candidate will have a compelling vision of how The New York Times presents education as an urgent, accessible story. The coverage should encompass preschool, K-12, higher education and vocational training, although we are open to proposals that argue for emphasizing one or more areas over others.
And third, an editor covering gender issues:
An analysis that shows how pay decreases when women take over jobs that men used to dominate. A look at how women ruled the Olympics. A searing documentary showing how a mob in Afghanistan killed an innocent woman. Chronicling the quest of women in rural India to work and be independent, even at the cost of their lives. Deep, compelling narratives on the transgender moment. A dazzling visualization of how unemployed men and women spend their time (hint: women clean the house and take care of others; men go back to school and watch TV). A conversation with dozens of women in Hollywood on their battle to make movies on an equal footing with men.
The New York Times has long covered the story of how gender shapes the lives of people across the globe. Now we are seeking a journalist with a compelling vision of how to expand this coverage, from boardroom to bedroom, from the loftiest corridors of power to the back alleys of the world’s most impoverished villages. We are looking for a creative, passionate leader to guide a cross-platform, global coverage vertical on the topic of gender and identity.
The vertical will draw on The Times’s deep coverage of issues related to gender, identity and sexuality, as well as new journalism in all formats: video, photography, data visualizations, podcasts, conferences and more. As with new roles leading coverage of climate change and education, this position will be independent of the department structure, and the editor will have no print obligations.
I haven’t applied yet, but I think we have a winner for the gender editor:
[guest post by JVW]
We’ve slayed a lot of electrons on this site lamenting President Obama’s ridiculous and self-serving overtures to the Islamic Republic of Iran despite the provocations, prevarications, agitations, and humiliations that Iran has treated us to since the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was signed last year. Meanwhile, we have been subject to lie after lie from the Administration as they desperately try to convince us that on balance Iran’s nebulous and insincere promises to curtail their nuclear weapons program justifies our lifting of sanctions and paying them ransoms.
So now comes further proof that Obama’s capitulation has only emboldened Iran to take a more assertive and aggressive posture in the Middle East. On Tuesday, Iranian patrol boats near the Strait of Hormuz (in recognizable international waters, according to American officials) performed aggressive intercept maneuvers against the USS Nitze, coming within 300 yards of the American destroyer despite repeated warnings to keep a safe distance (footage can be found here). Earlier today, the USS Squall fired three warning shots from its .50 caliber gun in the direction of an Iranian vessel which ventured within 200 yards of the American patrol ship. As with the Tuesday incident, the Iranian boats ignored repeated warnings via radio, flare, and airhorn. For their part, the Iranians claim that the American boats are entering Iranian maritime region without authorization.
State Department Spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau, last seen ’round these parts lying about the Administrations lies concerning Ben Rhodes, the Iran deal, and skillful video editing, channeled the full fury of her boss, Secretary of State (and Navy man!) John Forbes Kerry, in declaring that Iran is “unnecessarily escalating tensions.” I wonder if she and her boss have been briefed that the number of naval provocations by Iran against American ships is on track to be up 50% over last year. Perhaps they have, since their own department earlier this week advised Americans traveling to Iran that they are under increased danger of being detained or arrested in that country.
Yeah, this is the cherry atop President Obama’s foreign policy sundae, isn’t it?
Trump on his immigration 'softening': “I don’t think it’s a softening. I’ve had people say it’s a hardening” https://t.co/r6M3i6G1Sq
— CNN (@CNN) August 26, 2016