Carter, Nobel, Trump

Nobody expects this. Not the left because they don't like Trump and it doesn't matter what he does, nothing will change that, and not the right because they're well aware of how national and global awards go.

Besides, its value beyond its value as metal is already shot.

Trump's whole house is gold. His front door is gold. His furnishings are gold. The objects on his gold tables are gold. His jet is gold. His helicopter is gold. This is a disc that used to mean something.

You know, Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize himself. Yes, we try not to hold that against him. We tell ourselves, that was when they meant something.

Completely unrelated to this. I read the stupidest thing today meant to be serious. The link to a NYT story was found deep within the 400 pages of the Strzok/Carter Page emails. The link is not live so you have to type in the address. I wanted to see what they found interesting. It's interesting for its emptiness and for them finding it interesting. It confirms their own view of themselves fighting the good fight. Incidentally, there is nothing in the emails suggesting that the two were paramours. Kindred spirits, yes, lovers no. That is a false front. Whenever you hear someone calling them lovers you'll know instantly they don't know what they are talking about. The false front was to fool people like them.

*Pepé Le Pew voice* For you see, I speak the language of love.

Here is the stupidest thing on earth. Opinion by Timothy Egan writing for NYT. One of the kindred spirits showed the link to the other in email. 

Much better than that is Jeff Carlson writing for the Market Work describing the hidden messages that Senator Grassley broadcasted to Rod Rosenstein by insisting on un-redacted versions of the Strzok/Carter Page emails for Congress to read unimpeded.

Grassley can un-redact them himself but it takes a lot of time and effort, and when he makes that effort he sees there is no rhyme nor reason as to why the phrases are marked out in the first place. The denial of specific information does not follow any codified policy. He asks Rosenstein for the code key knowing there isn't one.

Jeff Carlson is very good at reading between the lines. He sees that Grassley already knows everything and he's telling Rosenstein that. So then, out with it. This is all going to Congress and in its original form. 

So they'll all see that McAbe bought a $70,000 conference table. And they'll all see the name that's marked out referencing the Obama White House "running" an investigation. 

There is a lot more at the link, quite a bit actually, to slog through. In summary Carlson shows: 

The obvious: 

1) The Senate Judiciary Committee still has not been given access to fully unredacted texts.

2) The Committee has not been given a valid reason for said redactions.

3) The less-redacted texts viewed by Committee Staff have only heightened Grassley’s interest.

4) Grassley has doubts over reasons for the redactions.

Less obvious, more interesting.

1) Grassley’s demanding of a legal basis for each redaction in the form of a “privilege log”.

2) Three specific footnotes (explained at length below).

   a) The bit about the table, another unredacted message that referenced a different $22,000 table

   b) A woman named Liz who made the White House running the investigation quote.

   c) Other specific documents that have peaked Grassley’s interest. That are found in a lengthy pdf:

3) Grassley’s highlighting of a “reference to a text about the Obama White House “running” an investigation” (more detail below).

4) A potential roadmap of Grassley’s focus (more detail below).

It is a very long and in depth analysis that stands out sharply against the NYT opinion piece linked within it among the emails between Strzok/Carter Page. 

The Federal Reserve has the best conference table that I've ever seen. It puts you in a mental state just entering the room with it. 

It's where I had my employment interview. And very many meetings after that. It is a very well used room. Years later my own framed art was hung in that room and thereafter I was hopelessly distracted by my own art. I fought for that not to be obvious but it really did interfere with my focus. And I kept thinking, man, have I come a long way here, from being blown away by such a large table in such a beautiful room to decorating it. Not exactly the career path I anticipated but I'll take what works for me. $70,000 doesn't seem that terribly high when some dining room tables sell reasonably for $5,000 to $10,000. My own table was $2,000, I think, and it's just a regular table.