“Wow, we have a bay window!” Professor Plum said as he walked into the mail room. “But still no doors.”
Complain, complain…. (More)
It’s true that the remodeled mail room, corridor, and cafeteria do not yet have doors:
After the construction crew puts in those doors, along with light switches and wall outlets, the decorators will bring in the new furniture. For now, we’re all sitting on the floor. Except for Professor Plum, and then Ms. Scarlet, who rose and went with him to join the resident faculty in the
wine cellar library, where they’ll spend the weekend thinking drinking on our motto of Magis vinum, magis verum (“More wine, more truth”).
In the staff poker game, neither Chef nor the
Professor of Astrology Janitor were especially comfortable. But the Squirrel thought the floor was just fine. Or maybe he was just pleased with his growing stacks of chips. Regardless, Chef seemed a bit less uncomfortable when she peeked at her cards and put in an opening raise. The Professor of Astrology Janitor looked at his Jack and Ten of Clubs and figured they were good for a call. But the Squirrel added a pot-sized reraise.
“Again, Regis?” Chef asked.
The Squirrel shrugged and tapped at his Blewberry: “I’m just playing the cards I’m dealt.”
Chef thought for a moment and folded. The
Professor of Astrology Janitor considered calling, but he was out of position, both in poker terms and physically. He folded and stood to stretch his back and knees. The Squirrel scooped in the small pot and Chef went to the kitchen to make a Bacon and Egg Breakfast Pizza, leaving your lowly mail room clerk to review the week’s correspondence….
Dear Ms. Crissie,
Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 16, 2018
The President of the United States, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, and Leader of the Free World
We think your claim of exoneration is … premature … at best. It is also false on some key facts. We read the complete text of the Mueller indictment of 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies, and it makes no finding on whether their conspiracy to wage “information warfare” affected the election results. It also makes no finding on whether your campaign was complicit in that conspiracy, or in the conspiracy to evade federal laws that forbid foreign contributions to U.S. candidates or political parties. Indeed that last element is one of the most intriguing mysteries of the indictment, as former White House Counsel Bob Bauer explained this week:
The special counsel’s indictment of Russian individuals and organizations brought campaign finance law for the first time into formal charges in the case. But this development came with a mystery. The indictment alleges facts that support charges of federal campaign finance law violations—such as the prohibition on foreign national contributions – but does not charge any such offenses. This is clearly not for want of evidence, since the indictment sets out in considerable detail the millions in foreign national spending to influence the 2016 election. Yet Bob Mueller omitted any direct charge for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Instead, the indictment builds the campaign finance issues into a conspiracy to defraud the United States – it alleges that the Russians conspired to obstruct the capacity of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law. The act of obstruction was a failure to report their illegal expenditures. If the FEC did not know about the expenditures, it could not enforce the law.
The Mueller indictment is conceivably one way to solve this problem. It alleges a conspiracy to prevent the FEC from taking up and addressing the regulatory issues, and American co-conspirators may be brought in on any overt act in furtherance of this illegal scheme. Any U.S. citizen who intentionally supported the Russian electoral intervention could be liable. Examples would include U.S. citizens engaged in conversations like those in Trump Tower in summer of 2016, or Don, Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks about the timing of the release of stolen emails. The conspiracy to defraud the United States could also envelop any Americans who helped cover the Russians’ illegal electoral program by lying to federal authorities about the campaign’s Russian contacts.
The special counsel may well have concluded that he could deal with any instances of U.S. citizen complicity without getting bogged down in unresolved questions of what constitutes “soliciting” support or providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance.” In sum, Mr. Mueller and his team may have adopted this theory of the case to facilitate the charging of Americans who helped their Russian allies interfere in the 2016 election. This is most plausible solution to the Mueller indictment mystery.
We conclude that there are many shoes still left to drop, and some of them may well fall on you.
As an aside, we note that your response exemplifies your privileged worldview. The indictment clearly states that Russian operatives chose to help your campaign and damage both your primary opponents and later Hillary Clinton. Even if we assume that your campaign took no part in and had no knowledge of that conspiracy – and that is a dubious assumption at best – the Russians still helped you win the 2016 GOP nomination and then the general election. They chose you, in part, because your identity and your racist and Islamophobic rhetoric fit Vladimir Putin’s own preferences. In short, the Russians helped you because you’re a white, purportedly-Christian male who repeatedly asserts the moral and political supremacy of those identity characteristics. But because you didn’t seek out their assistance – or so you claim – you deny their help had any role in the outcome.
In other words, you deny the boost-up from outside agents who helped you based on your whiteness, purported Christianity, and maleness … and pretend the result was all about your personal greatness. Just like so many other white, purportedly-Christian men in this country.
Dear Ms. Crissie,
I know humans like reheated pizza for breakfast, but it sounds like Chef is making this fresh. What recipe does she use?
Curiously Hungry in Blogistan
Chef did indeed make the Bacon and Egg Breakfast Pizza fresh, using the recipe at the link below. Bon appétit!
Image Credits: Crissie Brown (BPICampus.com)