Targeting only women

Nov 20th, 2019 11:45 am | By

Speaking of that Times article

A feminist artist who was due to speak at Oxford Brookes University yesterday had her talk cancelled at the last minute after students accused her of holding transphobic views.
The event featuring Rachel Ara, hosted by the university’s fine art research unit, was called off after the LGBTQ+ society sent a letter to Anne-Marie Kilday, the pro-vice-chancellor, condemning her invitation.

That’s all it took. One letter, from stupid uninformed people complaining of the sharing of two tweets.

The letter to Professor Kilday was signed by a number of people, including the chairman of the university’s Labour Party Club and the president of the LGBTQ+ society.

They should have read it more carefully.

Ara, 53, said that her art was clearly “too challenging for today’s youth” and lamented that “the world has gone slightly mad”.

She added: “I was going to be talking about feminism and art, and the difficulties that exist for women trying to break through. It was nothing to do with trans issues. I’m not transphobic. I have been openly gay for 35 years. I think this movement is misogynistic — they are only targeting other women.”

It’s unmistakably misogynist.



In another court far far away

Nov 20th, 2019 11:38 am | By

Also happening today – because there’s not enough going on?? – is that Fair Cop is in court tweeting the case of Harry Miller aka Harry the Owl, whose account was suspended for evilthought.

A selection of the tweets:

Opening by Harry’s counsel. Plainly a very important case involving freedom of speech in the internet era. Won’t go through all background facts but take the court to important documents. #FairCopJR

The involvement of the police in social media discussion about this. Judge interjects – want to lay down a marker. What is said against you is that recording a hate incident is not a sanction so not interference. And said your client is robust enough to comment.

Judge – suppose I find that combination of recording and remote potential for it to be disclosed and I find that PC Gul created impression that your client should stop – would all of that be sufficient to interfere with Art 10, not because it impacted YOUR client –

– but had chilling effect on others? Answer – yes. Recording under this policy, the publicity around what the police can do… if they had some deterrent effect on others that is sufficient – absolutely. #FairCopJR

Judge accepts that some of HM’s posting is capable of contributing to debate but not all. Counsel – will need to look in context.

Further discussion about putting ‘offensive’ speech in context of national conversation. The consequences of amendment to GRA are far reaching.

Judge – I note in the Times this morning that Oxford Brookes have ‘disinvited’ a speaker.

Why? Because she shared two tweets that some “activists” disliked.



How about Uma Thurman?

Nov 20th, 2019 11:09 am | By

This could be an apocryphal or exaggerated story, but if not…

A Hollywood executive wanted Julia Roberts to portray Harriet Tubman in the leading abolitionist’s biopic, the screenwriter of the new film “Harriet” said.

After studying Tubman’s life in college, about how she helped lead enslaved people to freedom on the Underground Railroad, screenwriter Gregory Allen Howard was determined to adapt her story into a feature film, he said in an interview with Focus Features, the distributor of “Harriet.”

When he met with a studio president about the idea in 1994, his script garnered praise, Howard wrote in an essay in the Los Angeles Times. It also received a casting suggestion.

“Let’s get Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman,” the executive told Howard.

Howard said the one other black person in the meeting said that would be impossible, as Julia Roberts is white.

The president replied, “That was so long ago. No one will know that,” Howard wrote.

But…what would the plot be then? Harriet Tubman spends a weekend with Richard Gere in an expensive hotel? Harriet Tubman meets scruffy bookseller Hugh Grant and his eccentric Welsh flatmate? Harriet Tubman dies young leaving her mother Sally Fields bereft but plucky?



WHAT DO YOU WANT

Nov 20th, 2019 10:45 am | By

There is also the first page of Trump’s notes, the one where Sondland sets up the context of Trump’s I WANT NOTHiNG.

Image

Wtf is going on over there? Was he sitting in bed transcribing the testimony himself, by hand?

He read all that to the reporters on the lawn. He read it twice, shifting into a more scratchy shouty voice for his own part of the dialogue. When he read the “HE WAS NOT iN A GOOD MOOD” part he said as an aside that [shouting] “I’M ALWAYS IN A GOOD MOOD, I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.”



What we knew and when we knew it

Nov 20th, 2019 10:22 am | By

A highlight reel of the statement:



HE WANT NOTHiNG

Nov 20th, 2019 9:40 am | By

Trump did a quick cameo in the White House backyard. He took notes with him, in giant letters, so that he wouldn’t forget what he was supposed to say.

Image

Now “I WANT NOTHING” is trending on Twitter.

He wrote that weird note himself. He always writes in all caps, like a true illiterate. All caps but he still dots the i.

THiS iS THE FiNAL WORD FROM THE PRES OF THE US, he wrote. Oh yes? So he’s resigning?



To call it a bombshell is to underestimate

Nov 20th, 2019 8:51 am | By

The Guardian pauses to take a breath and sum up:

With each line of his testimony, Sondland has blown another hole in Donald Trump’s defenses. To describe the testimony as a bombshell is perhaps to underestimate its potential for damage to Trump. To attempt to describe the shock that it is Sondland delivering this message is to come up short for words.

Since the impeachment inquiry began, Trump has ranted that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine, no conditions placed on a White House meeting, no strings on US military aid, only a desire to fight corruption in Ukraine and to pursue the truth about 2016. It is all a witch hunt, a hoax, Trump has said.

But every bit of it is true, and most every word from Trump’s mouth and his Twitter about it has been a lie, Sondland is testifying. There was a clear quid pro quo, repeatedly stated, and explicitly ordered by Trump through his designated agent, Rudy Giuliani.

Sondland is saying: he did it.

Sondland is also saying: we did it. He is quoting emails demonstrating that the plot, which secretary of state Mike Pompeo once pretended ignorance to, was well known inside the state department, National Security Council and budget office – and by vice president Mike Pence. “It was no secret,” Sondland said.

Now he begins a cross-examination period sure to generate moments that will go down in US political history.

What did the Mike Ps know and when did they know it.

Schiff is driving down on what the Mike Ps – Pompeo and Pence – knew and when they knew it.

Did Pompeo ever deny the connection between investigations and the White House meeting?

“Not that I recall.”

In a meeting with the vice-president in Warsaw, Sondland said he told Pence that he thought the military aid would not flow without the announcement of investigations.

Pence remained sphynxlike, in Sondland’s telling:

The vice president nodded like he heard what I said and that was pretty much it.

Sphynxlike? I think the correct word for that is “stupid.” Pence nodded because his head is empty.

Now Sondland is talking about a phone conversation in which Trump told him there was no quid pro quo. Earlier Sondland had said he took the president at his word. Now Sondland is saying he and everyone else knew there was a clear quid pro quo.

Sondland said after “frantic emails to me and to others about the security assistance” from ambassador Bill Taylor, Sondland called Trump and asked, “what do you want from Ukraine… what do you want?”

It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood. He said I want nothing, I want nothing, there’s no quid pro quo. Tell Zelenskiy to do the right thing.

That’s Trump all right. “There’s no quid pro quo, tell Zelenskiy to do the right thing, get it?

But the Republicans want us to take the lies at face value.

Castor, the Republican lawyer, asks Sondland if Trump ever told him personally that aid or a meeting were conditioned on an announcement of investigations.

Sondland: “Personally, no.”

Castor: So how did you know Giuliani spoke for Trump?

Sondland: “Well when the president says talk to my personal attorney and then Mr Giuliani says ‘as the president’s attorney,’ we assume it’s coming from the president.

Then Castor splits hairs between Trump saying “Go talk to Rudy” and “Talk to Rudy”. It wasn’t an order, correct? Castor says.

We understood we had to talk to Rudy to get anything done on Ukraine, Sondland said.

Oh but no no no this was all a rogue operation by Rudy Giuliani, entirely on his own, nothing to do with Trump, Trump had no idea it was going on, he is shocked, SHOCKED to hear of it.

But Giuliani has insurance:

Is Giuliani going under the bus?

You’ll recall:

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, has said he is confident the president will remain loyal to him as an impeachment inquiry unfolds in which the former New York mayor has become a central figure.

But Giuliani joked that he had good “insurance” in case Trump did turn on him, amid speculation Republicans will seek to frame him as a rogue actor.

In a telephone interview with the Guardian, in response to a question about whether he was nervous that Trump might “throw him under a bus” in the impeachment crisis, Giuliani said, with a slight laugh: “I’m not, but I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid.”

Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, who was also on the call, then interjected: “He’s joking.”

Nah, he’s not. They’re both crooks and they know each other well.



Everyone was in the loop

Nov 20th, 2019 8:32 am | By

Apparently Sondland’s testimony is being very damning.

He read an opening statement saying he would be confirming the quid pro quo.

He said he and Volker didn’t want to work with Giuliani but they followed the president’s orders.

They tried to talk him out of it, but no.

In response to our persistent efforts to change his views, President Trump directed us to “talk with Rudy.” We understood that “talk with Rudy” meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer.

Let me say again: We weren’t happy with the President’s directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believed then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the President’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters.

Nonetheless, based on the President’s direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the efforts to schedule the White House phone call and White House visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest — or we could do as President Trump had directed and “talk with Rudy.” We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us.

Not exactly. He could have blown the whistle, or he and Volker together could have. But that’s not the issue, the issue is what Trump was doing, and the way Sondland is nailing it to the wall.

Sondland’s testimony continues to break in wave after wave of stunning statements contradicting previous testimony by Morrison and others that he was somehow acting alone:

We kept the leadership of the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities. That included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo, his Counselor Ulrich Brechbuehl, and Executive Secretary Lisa Kenna within the State Department; and communications with Ambassador John Bolton, Dr. Fiona Hill, Mr. Timothy Morrison, and their staff at the NSC. They knew what we were doing and why.

Everyone was in the loop.

Now Sondland quotes from an email that the state department has refused to release.

Significant are the names CC’d – the secretary of state, secretary of energy, the acting chief of staff… all of whom have refused congressional subpoenas to testify or provide documents:

Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19 email that I sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack (Perry’s Chief of Staff), Ms. Kenna, Acting Chief of Staff and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney (White House), and Mr. Mulvaney’s Senior Advisor Robert Blair. A lot of senior officials.

Here is my exact quote from that email: “I Talked to Zelensky just now… He is prepared to receive Potus’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone’. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a ‘friendly and productive call’ (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney responded: “I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow.”

Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the Presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to “run a fully transparent investigation” and “turn over every stone” were necessary in his call with President Trump.

All of which meant not clean up corruption in Ukraine but find or manufacture dirt on Biden.

TBC



Another trophy bagged

Nov 19th, 2019 4:02 pm | By

The Oxford Mail has the story on the abrupt last minute cancellation of Rachel Ara’s talk:

A FEMINIST artist who was due to speak at Oxford Brookes University tonight has had her talk cancelled at the last minute after accusations from students that she is transphobic.

Rachel Ara announced on Twitter this morning that her event had been cancelled after complaints from students and speculated that her art is ‘too challenging for today’s youth’.

It comes after Oxford Brookes LGBTQ+ society sent a letter to the university’s pro-vice chancellor, professor Anne-Marie Kilday, condemning the invitation to the artist to speak at the university because of her alleged transphobic views.

Ms Ara, who won the Aesthetica Art Prize 2016 for her project This Much I’m Worth, was due to speak today about her work at Oxford Brookes School of Arts.

Her work? Who cares about that? All that matters is that somebody somewhere said she is transphobic. What kind of monster gives a damn about her work??!

In the letter to the professor, the LGBTQ+ society said: “Rachel Ara is a trans exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) who frequently shares transphobic discourse on her social media.

In other words they found two (2) retweets that they consider “sharing transphobic discourse.” Watch what you retweet, bitch!

“She has openly showed support for the “LGB Alliance” which is openly transphobic and seeks to isolate trans people within the LGBTQ+ movement.”

That’s “shown” in English, and no it isn’t and no it doesn’t. Why are the people in charge so reluctant to tell these twerps to fuck off? Why do they take this illiterate mindless garbage so seriously?

“She has also openly shown support for Selina Todd, who is a strong advocate of “A Woman’s Place, a transphobic organisation acting under the guise of academic freedom.”

Selina Todd is an award-winning feminist historian who specializes in the history of working class women, but don’t let that slow you down.

The creeps are proud of their letter and shared it (OPENLY, to use their censorious word) on Twitter:

Image

Image

Image

And Oxford Brookes, astonishingly, did what these two creeps told them to do.



Ontology for fantasists

Nov 19th, 2019 3:31 pm | By

Oh good, another smug stupid slogan from another group that should know better. Lambda Legal tweets:

Qualities that make someone “a real man”:

1. Identifying as a man.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

#InternationalMensDay

Can anyone play?

Qualities that make someone a real pilot:

1. Identifying as a pilot.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

Good? Compelling? Obviously true?

Qualities that make someone a real Beluga whale:

1. Identifying as a Beluga whale.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

Qualities that make someone a real planet:

1. Identifying as a planet.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

Qualities that make someone a real daffodil:

1. Identifying as a daffodil.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

Qualities that make someone a real Model-T Ford:

1. Identifying as a Model-T Ford.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. See above.

It’s all so enlightening, isn’t it?



Is there also an international white people’s day?

Nov 19th, 2019 3:10 pm | By

The ACLU pronounces:

Trans men are men.

No they’re not, and we all have the civil liberty to say so.

It made an image to illustrate its four word pronouncement.

No photo description available.

Of course there’s no one way to be a man; it doesn’t follow and it isn’t true that men who get “their” periods are women, nor does it follow nor is it true that “men” who get pregnant and give birth are men. There’s no one way to be a man, but there are ways not to be a man, such as being born with a female body.

And we all have the civil liberty to defend that truth, and to say that it is truth and that what the ACLU asserts is not truth, is false, is wrong, is a lie. The American Civil Liberties Union has no business trying to bully us into agreeing that men can be women and women can be men.



A particularly interesting case

Nov 19th, 2019 11:45 am | By

A feminist barrister has been attending Maya Forstater’s tribunal and livetweeting it; Thread Reader has stitched it together.

I’m at the Employment Tribunal this morning to watch closing submissions for the #MayaForstaterCase2019. It’s a particularly interesting case on whether a) gender critical beliefs and / or b) a belief in innate gender identity are protected philosophical beliefs.

Does there have to be a belief in innate gender identity in order for absence of belief to be protected? Possibly not, say the judge and counsel for the Respondent (employer)

Respondent kicks off with the assertion that MF’s beliefs fail on Grainger 5: that they are incompatible with human dignity.

She explains Grainger later on. Meanwhile, note the claim that it’s incompatible with human dignity to fail to believe that men can become women. I think you could make a case that it’s the other way around – that if you think sex is that fungible, that easy to swap, that loosely worn – then we become something more like dolls than complex beings with biology and history and life experience. I don’t particularly want to make that case (because it’s beside the point, for one thing), but I would if the law started telling us we have to believe the “you can change sex at will” nonsense.

She argues that MF’s belief in biological sex do not reach a minimum level of coherence to satisfy Article 9 (freedom of belief). Many beliefs fit this category – eg an architect who refused to sign up to architect association, anti-vaccination, someone who wanted to marry an underage girl, refusal to wear a seatbelt. None of these were protected by Art 9 and she argues that MF’s belief in biological sex is in the same category.

The architect is a wild card; I don’t see how that fits so let’s ignore it (no doubt it was explained in the hearing). The other three have to do with harms to others – definite, clear, specifiable harms. The harms that result from failure to believe that men can become women are not like that at all – they’re notional, projected, guessed-at, attributed. One can argue that the harms of sexism and racism are like that too, but on the other hand women and brown people are real, while the designation “trans” points to something unreal.

Counsel for Respondent says almost all of MF’s beliefs stray into Art 9(2) territory – not protected because they are offensive in a democratic society, and should be suppressed for protection and freedom of trans women.

Let’s be charitable about the word “offensive” here; let’s read it as meaning “an offense to a democratic society because the basis of unjust discrimination” as opposed to merely referring to worked-up outrage. Even then, is it true? It’s not true if you don’t consider it unjust discrimination to fail to believe that men become women by saying so. I don’t think we have to accept other people’s accounts of themselves in every particular in order to treat them as equals and deserving of respect.

Jumping ahead:

Comparison to anorexia is an odious view. Anorexics are ill, while trans people are trying to make the outside match the inside. Can’t be a protected view.

In x-x MF insisted that Pips Bunce is male, even though in fact he is gender-fluid. [pronoun counsel’s own, if I heard that correctly]

Oops. How odious.

In x-x she also said she would not accept a panel made up of men and trans women was a mixed panel, and that demonstrates the absurdity of her beliefs. They are not worthy of respect in a democratic society bc that panel would be legally mixed.

Ah yes, how “absurd” for women to believe that a panel made up of men, some of whom called themselves women, was a panel made up of men. What possible reason could we have to object to such an arrangement, and to the insistence that we have to believe the claims behind it ourselves, and endorse them, and say nice things about them?



No plans to change the panel

Nov 19th, 2019 10:58 am | By

It doesn’t appear that the Royal Institute of Philosophy is looking to fold in the face of Social Tutting. Jesse Singal:

Update on this: The head of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, Julian Baggini, says the panel isn’t going to be changed. “I would rather wait until after the event before saying more. You ask about when a final decision will be made. We have no plans to change the panel.”

And, if I’m reading the subtext correctly, no plans to have plans to change the panel.

The subsubsubtext could be, though I’m only guessing, “Those who want us to change the panel are invited to take a long walk on a short pier.”



The ultimate risk

Nov 19th, 2019 10:36 am | By

A pair of tweets:

Margaret Talev:

Vindman explains why a Soviet-born dad would worry about his testifying in way that could challenge/expose the president: “He deeply worried about it” bc in “his context” it was the “ultimate risk.”

Alayna Treene commenting on the above:

Each time Vindman reminds his dad — who is seated behind him — that he need not worry, his dad beams behind him

Meanwhile the White House and Trump are hard at work trying to be more like Putin.



Concerns

Nov 19th, 2019 10:23 am | By

Now the White House Twitter account is joining Trump in witness intimidation.

The White House Twitter account has just sent a message raising doubts about the judgement of Lt Col Alexander Vindman as the NSC official testifies in the impeachment inquiry.

Tim Morrison, Alexander Vindman’s former boss, testified in his deposition that he had concerns about Vindman’s judgment.

View image on Twitter

To repeat: that’s the White House Twitter account.

The Guardian adds:

The White House tweet raising doubts about the judgement of Lt Col Alexander Vindman is particularly shocking considering the Iraq war veteran still serves on the national security council.

Meanwhile, over on Trump’s Twitter account, the president is resharing messages from Republican accounts downplaying the testimony from Vindman and Jennifer Williams.

Four legs good, two legs bad.



It takes only one tweet to get a woman shut down

Nov 19th, 2019 8:42 am | By

Last thing yesterday I did a post about some amateur Savonarola on Twitter telling a college to cancel a talk by a woman artist because he, pretend Savonarola, considered her trAnspHobic, on the very serious basis that she had retweeted a couple of tweets he disapproved of. It seemed like childish bullshit, AND YET – it worked.

Rachel A R A tweeted 7 hours ago (so about 7:30 a.m. UK time)

Sorry folks .. but my talk at Oxford has been cancelled tonight. Some twitter user @terfsoutofart (I assume some disenfranchised man) has galvanised students to complain about me. I guess making art about feminist issues is a bit too challenging for today’s youth! #waronwomen

Just.like.that.

One asshole, one stupid tweet that can point only to a couple of retweets of unapproved women, and BAM, talk is canceled.



Tipoffs welcome

Nov 18th, 2019 5:30 pm | By

Another sniffy censor: TERFS OUT OF ART. They want to get feminists with unapproved opinions out of art, you see.

✊ Trans rights are human rights 👟 Working to kick transphobia out of art 📨 Tipoffs welcome 📣 RT / amplify us so we can get the job done 🏳️‍🌈 TERFs blocked

I’m blocked, so I guess I must be a TERF.

Here’s their “work” for today:

TERF artist Rachel Ara will speak at #OxfordBrookes university tomorrow.

Giving transphobes a uni platform is unacceptable. We encourage students & staff to picket & raise complaints with @obuarts at http://brookes.ac.uk/school-of-arts/about/ … – campus must be safe for everyone.

This account shows us two tweets that Rachel Ara retweeted, and for that they are trying to prevent her from giving a scheduled talk. They’ll be telling us how often we’re allowed to breathe next.



Guest post: The “certain way” of thinking

Nov 18th, 2019 5:02 pm | By

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Women’s sports are prospering so it’s time to give them to men.

So, once again, we have one definition whereby people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers are “women” while people with physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers are not, regardless of anything that goes on inside their heads. And we have one definition (or would have if it not for the fact that the Genderspeak definitions of “women” are all circular) whereby people with physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers who think or feel a certain way are “women”, regardless of physical traits, while some…? most…? all…? of the people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers are not (As I have previously written, I seriously doubt that many of the latter would say they fit the Genderspeak definition of “women” if they knew how that requires them to think or feel). What we decidedly don’t have is a definition whereby people with physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers who think or feel a certain way are people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers, or vice versa.

As I have previously written, it’s unclear to say the least why people who think or feel a certain way would need separate sporting events from people who think or feel some other way (After all, an argument could be made that there are as many ways of thinking and feeling as there are people on the planet), and even if some reason could be conjured up, it is no longer automatically the case that people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers are qualified to compete, and we would need some kind of screening process to ensure that only people who really do think/feel the required way get to participate. This is, of course, once again complicated by the fact that the “certain way” that people are supposed to think or feel in order to qualify as “women” is never specified. However, since the Genderspeak definition of “women” pretty much boils down to “whatever it is that angry trans activists happen to be”, I think we can safely conclude that the “certain way” of thinking and feeling includes extreme entitlement, narcissism, aggression, boorishness and misogyny.



It sounded like a threat

Nov 18th, 2019 4:23 pm | By

Mimi Rocah and Karen Schwartz on Marie Yovanovitch and Christine Blasey Ford:

Like many Americans, we expected the testimony of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to be powerful. We did not expect it to prove so emotional, or to feel so familiar.

But by midmorning, things took a turn. Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman asked her about how she felt after learning President Donald Trump had discussed her with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during the now infamous July 25 phone call. It was a chilling moment. Referring to Yovanovitch as “the woman,” Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart she was “going to go through some things.”

“It was a terrible moment,” Yovanovitch recalled Friday. She said “that the color drained from my face. I think I even had a physical reaction,” when that portion of the call was read to her. It sounded, she said, “like a threat.”

In that moment, Yovanovitch became not only a witness to the corruption of Ukrainian-American policy but also a victim of that corruption — “the former ambassador” but also “the woman.” Clearly, she was being targeted by a smear campaign orchestrated by Rudy Giuliani and his henchmen, a campaign adopted and amplified by the president of the United States.

Those watching the hearing could not help but be struck by the imbalances of power at play. It’s a power dynamic that we’ve seen before however, notably during the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

Ford seemed to symbolize women everywhere who had been assaulted as she recounted, yet again, her assault. In the same way, Yovanovitch seems to symbolize any woman who’s ever had a man try to undermine her, demote her or push her out.

And lest we think this is unique to Trump, you can draw another direct line between these testimonies and Anita Hill, a woman who came to symbolize anyone who has ever been sexually harassed in the workplace.

Well, he didn’t run as a feminist.

Image result for trump stalking clinton



The latest burst of hail

Nov 18th, 2019 12:03 pm | By

Charles Pierce at Esquire says things are speeding up on Trump’s train to the cliff edge.

The latest burst of hail comes from a federal appeals court in Washington. From the Washington Post:

The request followed closely on the heels of Friday’s conviction of longtime Trump friend Roger Stone. Testimony and evidence at his trial appeared to cast doubt on written replies from Trump to Mueller about the president’s knowledge about attempts by his 2016 campaign to learn more about the release of hacked Democratic emails by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. “Did the president lie? Was the president not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation,” General Counsel Douglas N. Letter said. “The House is trying to determine whether the current president should remain in office. This is unbelievably serious and it’s happening right now, very fast.”

If the president* lied to Mueller’s people, that’s the entire ballgame.

Is it though? If Barr and the Senate won’t admit it’s the entire ballgame then it isn’t, right?

And that’s not even to get into the possibility that he—or nature itself—may be crafting a medical bailout for him even as we speak. (Reports are that he received the Fed chair in the residence today, and not in the Oval Office. Edith Wilson, white courtesy phone, please.) The rivets are all popping and the gears are springing loose. And now there’s a whistleblower from the IRS charging that a political appointee at Treasury may have monkey-wrenched an audit of either the president* or of Vice President Mike Pence. The hailstorm’s getting stronger, and the jackasses are running out of room.

Interesting.