Many of us have been coffee boys, but how many of us have brokered a meeting between a presidential nominee and the president of Egypt?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
38 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
For a “coffee boy” that guy really got around! Thankfully, he was extremely talkative about his exploits when plied with alcohol, and equally thankfully, someone informed our authorities last year.
Curious that in the midst of this FBI investigation into the Trump-Russian connection, Comey thought to reopen the Clinton e mails story a few days before the election. It would appear the FBI thought Clinton was a crook as well and he was out to nab her too. Or maybe he thought the republic was coming down around his ears.
I imagine Comey is as true a believer in Both Siderism as he is in his own probity. So if he’s aware that the FBI is deep into an investigation of the Trump-Russian connection, he’s desperate to manufacture an equivalence on the Clinton side.
To his tiny Beltway mind, that proves he’s the Last Honest Man.
Sure, never let an opportunity go by when the republic is in danger. Maybe he can splain this one day and how well it worked out. Or he decided Clinton was the real danger here, at least for ten minutes or so. Tiny minds you know.
You guys are barking up the wrong tree. You need to understand one simple fact: there is a Trumpist clique, led by Giuliani and Kallstrom, in the NY office of the FBI. This is the same group that’s now trying to discredit Mueller. Comey is not part of it, in fact they HATE Comey. They were the ones who pressured Comey to renew the Clinton probe — he had little choice as they were getting ready to leak it anyway but with their own spin.
https:/www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/6/1592052-New-York-FBI-Office-with-Ties-to-Giuliani-Trump-
in-Charge-of-Investigating-Clinton-Foundation
https:/sandiegofreepress.org/2016/11/fifth-column-inside-fbi
Here’s something you haven’t heard much about: Giuliani’s very high-level Russian connections.
https:/thesternfacts.com/the-trump-russia-dossier-includes-rudy-giulianis-clients-alfa-bank-rosneft
-and-qatar-1353876e789e
Grant Stern is all over this issue on his website, check it out.
https:
thesternfacts.com
Kallstrom and Jeannine Pirro are still spinning this Trumpist line, now going after Mueller:
https:/www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/20/former_fbi_asst_director_james_kallstrom_anti-tru
mp_cabal_needs_to_be_removed_from_fbi.html
https:
/www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/17/pirro_doubles_down_andrew_mccabe_is_consigliere_o
f_the_fbi_criminal_cabal.html
The first link will work if you close up the space before the words “in-Charge” in the URL.
. . . to make an actual, functional hyperlink.
It. Ain’t. Exactly. Rocket. Science.
Interesting observation, (I couldn’t get the link to work on my I pad) but I still suggest this was Comey making his pick. He could have refused or pasted them both with suspicion. He didn’t. If true it just puts an exclamation point behind the corruption of the FBI and Comey. Whatever happened to law and order? Anyway thanks for your take.
Something tells me you don’t know much about how the actual FBI works…
Among family members, we had a discussion about this. We think, but not with a great deal of assurance, that both Comey and Obama were afraid of bullying/blowback if they appeared to favor Clinton.
But they KNEW what was at stake. So why did they back off? I’d really like to hear the thoughts of others.
Mr Obama consistently avoided problems and confrontations. “No drama Obama.” There was a lot of good to that – so few scandals – and some serious side effects.
Maybe that’s all just perception, not reality, but it does seem like he would try every possible alternative before throwing a punch.
I agree with this. His upside was caution. His downside was caution.
His upside was that he was the first black President, and the first black President to survive his term in office. That is not to be discounted. Imagine if he’d been assassinated. Imagine. Oh god.
I think most people don’t properly understand the enormous mortal risk he ran, just even -running- for President. If I’d been Michelle, I’d have never, ever allowed it. She’s a far, far, far braver woman than I’ll ever be a man. And of course, PBHO is far braver than I’ll ever be too.
From what I’ve read Michelle was terrified, and with good reason. I’ve also read that many black people had mixed feelings about his election because they were so worried he might be assassinated.
. . . “enormous mortal risk he ran” far better today than in 2008 or even 2015. I.e., before Trump encouraged the racists to emerge like cockroaches from the cracks and crevices where they’d kept their bigotry mostly latent, hidden, or at least blurred beneath a thin veneer of (faux) decency and civility, to let their racist flags and Nazi salutes and chants fly proudly, right out in the open.
For example, before they martyred Heather Heyer.
I know my understanding of the nature of “my fellow Americans” is significantly different than it was on, say, New Year’s Day 2016. And not in a good way. In fact, in a horrified way.
See my comment above. Comey’s hand was forced by a Trumpist clique within the FBI. This is well documented.
I think it was MUCH simpler than all the soul searching and both sides bullshit.
The powers that be felt that there was no way Trump could possibly win. They wanted to cripple and de-legimatize a Clinton presidency from prior to the start.
Comey’s bullshit re-opening 4 days before the election was a knee-cap … not a Trump insurgency.
Or even simpler, everyone up there (including the two candidates) knew what was going to happen. The mythology that there was no way X could possibly win is becoming very familiar.
Don’t believe the meetings the Donald tried to set up prior to winning had anything to do with policy. It was and still is about his business…building hotels. He is open to war with NK that will destroy the SK because SK will not let him build a hotel.
Here is what Hoarse Whisperer says about his experience with NPD:
https://twitter.com/HoarseWisperer/status/884179117192749056
“NPD“
Also this …
“Trump and Press“
. . . “Is exploitative of others”.
Compelling me to ask, as with similar linguistic abominations (cf. “preventative”, “orientate”) . . .
. . . whom does Trump “exploitate”?
More to the point, what does “exploitate” even mean? (Rhetorical. Answer: nothing! “Exploitate” isn’t a word in American English. *And no, don’t bother linking me to a dictionary entry listing “exploitative” as a “variant” or some such. If dictionaries ever functioned as arbiters of “proper”, “correct”, or “acceptable” use of the language, they abdicated that role long ago in favor of simply documenting “usage”. Which is at least part of how abominations like “exploitative” become “common usage” and end up listed in dictionaries!)
BTW: American English already has a perfectly good, linguistically obvious and correct word conveying the meaning the DSM authors were aiming for, but botched with “exploitative”. That word is “exploitive”. Cf. “preventive”, “orient”.
*Merriam-Webster: “exploitive first known use 1858”; “exploitative first known use 1879”. If only in realtime someone had had the good sense to grab that 1879 abuser and give him/her a good smack. Just think of the ~1 1/2 centuries of linguistic horror that could have spared us all!
/rant
o/t Feliz Año Nuevo/Bonne Année à tous
wrong
heh, double wrong
.
Covered that.
I think that “exploitative” derives from one who is or tends to like exploiting another person or situation. Not thinking there’s much difference with exploitive except that the latter is purely adjectival whereas the former has more of a verbal connotation (not quite a gerund though). So a stylistic difference.
. . . exists as a verb. It doesn’t.
My “etymology” for these abominations:
“Exploitation” is an actual English word. So is “orientation”.
[However, “preventation” isn’t, any more than “preventate” is an English verb, putting “preventative” in its own special class of linguistic abomination on steroids.]
From them, ignorant people “invented” “orientate” and “exploitative”, even though perfectly good English words (that are not such linguistic abominations) already existed to convey these meanings.
Then snoozing proofreaders/editors/8th-grade English teachers repeatedly let these abominations slide by. And the rest is linguistic history.
At least that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.
* i.e., “more of a verbal connotation”
Booman Tribune: Come for the politics. Stay for the English lessons.
Then why is it “exploitation” and not “exploition”?
Especially considering that my pay grade for this gig = 0.
But there are many similar cases: e.g., the aforementioned “orientation” (not “oriention”). “Presentation” (not “presention”) also comes immediately to mind.
From these cases one is tempted to infer the rule ‘verb ending in “t” adds “a” before “tion” to form noun’.
But, oops: “prevention”, not “preventation”. (Interesting, though, that this is the case that renders “preventative” an abomination. Is “prevention” actually the aberration?)
But hey, it’s English, the language containing the aphorism “there’s an exception to every rule”.
Which, in case you never noticed, is self-contradictory, a paradox: since that aphorism is itself a rule, if true it must have an exception . . . which would then render it false!
Didn’t Seth Abramson reveal all this a couple months ago? All’s ya gotta do is read his twitter feed.
I don’t read anybody’s Twitter feed.
coffee boys?
I don’t even know what a “coffee boy” is/does (brings coffee, presumably on demand, I suppose — but that’s a thing?), much less ever having been one.
Jus’ sayin’.
Most coffee people are women.
When I was a coffee boy I programmed the computers that controlled Apollo 12, then devised the original text that became the basis ABM Treaty and interim SALT agreement on May 26, 1972 between the USSR and the USA.
Apollo 12? Are you the coffee boy that followed me after I poured cups for the NASA staff during the Apollo 11 flight and told them to take it easy while I talked Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin thru their moon landing in the Sea of Tranquility?
Following you I had big cups to fill 🙂
Knowing how congenitally cheap Trump has always been, I am confident the campaign had no “coffee boys” unless they were unpaid volunteers and I seriously doubt Papadopolous was a casual volunteer. We’ve been focusing logically on Flynn but Mr. P., Carter Page, Clovis and, of course, Manafort have a lot to offer. Then there’s Prince Jared…