Chris Krebs is Simultaneously Smooth and Gheorghe, Alternatively Titled Joe diGenova is not at all Gheorghe

I went to law school with Chris Krebs.  He's a good guy.  He was the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency until Donald Trump fired him for saying that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history."  I'm not surprised that he was in charge of something important, that he did a good job, and that he stood up for what was right.  I am, however, surprised that rob thinks Chris is the sexiest man in America.

Chris Krebs, Sexiest Man in America https://t.co/jk4XXKward

— BATOGATE! (@batogato) November 19, 2020

But maybe I shouldn't be.  Have you seen Chris's alter ego on twitter?  He has a mask and everything.

Less surprising is Trump campaign lawyer and bolo lover Joe diGenova's assertion "Anybody who thinks the election went well, like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity.  That guy is a class A moron.  He should be drawn and quartered.  Taken out at dawn and shot."  You can watch it here.

It amuses me that a man who capitalizes the third but not the first letter in his last name would call anyone a moron.  He certainly isn't Gheorghe, not at all.  But Chris is.

Here's an interview Chris gave on Today.  You should watch the first 69 seconds, at a minimum.  "I've got an exceptional team of lawyers that win in court and I think they're probably going to be busy" and "I'm not going to give them the benefit of knowing how I'm reacting to this, they can know that things are coming though" is some ballsy Gheorgheness.  The last two minutes are some goosebump-inspiring patriotism.

When Chris burst onto the national scene, I emailed a friend from law school and we both concluded that Chris would come out of this situation a winner--the crookedest man on earth fired him for nailing an important job and being a stand-up guy.  I look forward to watching him provide smooth commentary on political talk shows for the next thirty years.  He's butter.

“I have confidence in the security of this election… Any attacks on the election were not successful,” says Chris Krebs, former head of CISA, a federal agency charged with election security. POTUS fired Krebs after CISA called the 2020 election secure. https://t.co/1zzJAFyKQh pic.twitter.com/gAMGH4yTAg

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) November 30, 2020

I hate the new blogger but I might have some good covid news, alternatively titled "The Wisdom of Barbers," even more alternatively titled "T is for Trump," with some bad news predicted at the end

We've been awash in a sea of conflicting covid-19 information since the beginning of the crisis.  I think I've found some good news amid this morass of confusion.

Our adaptive immune systems primarily involve two types of cells: B cells and T cells.  It appears that T cells are more predominant when it comes to beating covid-19.  You can read about it here.

In July 2020, a group of European scientists published an article in Nature describing how they tested a bunch of people who never had coivd-19 and found that about 35% of them had a T cell response.  They attribute this to exposure to other coronaviruses.  This means that about 35% of the population might have some preexisting immunity to covid-19.  That's good news! 

I learned about this from a friend who is probably the smartest guy I know (sorry Dave).  He also posits that about 2% of the population of NJ already tested positive, which means that about 20% of NJ had the virus (the CDC says the true infection rate is about 10 times higher than reported).

Taken together, about 55% of the people in NJ should have some sort of immune response to the virus so we're close to the level needed for herd immunity.  That's good news too!

This conclusion is further validated by my barber.  I subscribe to a theory I call The Wisdom of Barbers.  Barbers spend the day shooting the shit with men of all ages, ethnicities, races, backgrounds, and socioeconomic status.  As a result they gather in an insanely broad range of views on whatever topic the feel like discussing and they can often crystallize that information into a prediction about the future.  My old barber ran a presidential election poll for over 20 years and it was always right.

Anyway, I got a haircut the other day at my local barbershop, an uncle-and-nephew team who may or may not take your action on NFL games.  My friend who told me about the European study also gets his hair cut there, so I asked the nephew if my friend told him about it too.  The nephew said "No, but I read a paper published through the NIH and it says the number could be as high as 50%."  I found the article in Science and he's right.  This is more good news!

All of that said, my friend an my barber are both conservatives.  My friend hates Trump but he's also a bit of a Blue Lives Matter guy (stuff like "If he had just listened to the police he wouldn't have gotten shot."). My barber voted for Trump and I'm pretty sure he will do so again (he's a Ben Shapiro fan).  The fact that they and no one other than zdaughter's speech therapist (who may be kinda Trumpy too) talks about this makes me wonder if it's a right wing talking point.

I suspect it's both.  For once, Republicans are speaking the truth and the virus will soon run its course, turning into nothing more than a relatively routine but life-threatening infection like measles.  I predict this will happen around mid-October.

Why then?  Because that's two weeks before the election.  Of course this is when the virus will clear up.  My old barber with the straw poll once told me "If you're ever at the race track and you see Bill Clinton, bet like he does.  That lucky bastard could bet on a three-legged horse and still win."  This is true--his shitty shenanigans never resulted in any real penalties and he's even allowed to speak publicly despite #MeToo.  Trump is the same guy, a bizzarro Cill Clinton.  Of course our T cells will save his lucky ass right in time to get reelected.

I eagerly await the FDA's approval of Trump brand T cells, yours for only $500 a dose or free when you buys a one year membership to any Trump brand golf club.

Just a Quick Recap

Yesterday the White House released a memorandum summarizing a conversation between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Soon thereafter, millions of pundits analyzed the document and pontificated as to whether or not the conversation amounted to a quid pro quo--a grant of military funding from the US to Ukraine in return for Ukraine initiating an investigation into Joe Biden's son. I think it's pretty clear that the conversation resulted in a bartered-for exchange:

Trump said "United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine."

Zelenskyy replied "Yes you are absolutely right .... I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

Trump immediately replied "I would like you to do us a favor ..." and asked for Ukraine to look into CrowdStrike.

Zelenskyy's next words were "Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation." He then said he's looking forward to seeing Rudy Giuliani.

Trump rambles for a sentence or two and then says "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

Zelenskyy responds that "the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue."

Trump replies "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out."

Zelenskyy notes that he stayed in the Trump Tower the last time he visited New York City and adds that he "would like to thank you very much for your support."

Satisfied, Trump wraps things up with "Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you."

These guys just did a deal, right? In a nutshell, the first guy told the second guy that the second guy takes but doesn't give; the second guy offered to make it up to the first guy by "coooperating" to buy some stuff from him; the first guy asked for a favor; the second guy said yes and noted that he's open to "future cooperation"; the first guy asked for another favor; the second guy said he'd put someone on it right away; the first guy said his boys Rudy and Bob would be in touch to discuss next steps; they both thanked each other.

How is this not a quid pro quo exchange? More importantly, WHO THE FUCK CARES IF THIS IS A QUID PRO QUO EXCHANGE!?!?!? THIS IS FUCKING COLLUSION OR CONSPIRACY OR COOPERATION OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT TO CALL IT!!!

Robert Mueller and his team spend close to two years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. He was not looking for "quid pro quo," he was looking for "coordination" between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. I know this because page 2 of the Mueller Report says "we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]'—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities." Page 2 of the Mueller Report notes that "[l]ike collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

Isn't that exactly what Trump and Zelenskyy did? They tacitly agreed to interfere with the upcoming 2020 Presidential election, right? Why isn't anyone saying this? Why is everyone debating "quid pro quo"? You mean to tell me that if Mueller found a tape recording of a phone call between Trump and Putin saying what I outlined above, Mueller still would have concluded that there was no "cooperation" between Trump and Russia? If you're telling me that, please pass me whatever you're drinking.

The Mueller Report also analyzed the facts under the rubric of conspiracy, applying 18 U.S.C. § 371 and statutes with similar standards. Mueller Report at 181. The elements of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are:

(1) Two or more persons
(2) conspire (i.e., intentionally agree--you can't have a conspiracy between a criminal and an undercover cop because the cop doesn't really intend to commit the crime)
(3) to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and
(4) one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy

Trump's call with Zelenskyy had two people. Element 1, check. They intentionally agreed to do something, namely to investigate CrowdStrike and Biden. Element 2, check. Trump hopes that investigating Biden will result in information adverse to his political rival, so he's asking a foreign government to provide information that will influence the next election. Element 3, check (see 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(C); United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (9th Cir. 2014)). So long as Zelenskyy took a single step towards investigating Biden, we have element 4 and thus a conspiracy.

I just explained this in under 1000 words (987 to be exact) and I could definitely pare it down if I wasn't lazy. Why doesn't anyone else with a bigger platform point this out? Probably because DJ Trump Jedi mind tricked everyone again, and has us all talking about quids and pros. To paraphrase KRS-ONE, I encourage you to wake up, take the pillow from your head and put a book in it. Or at least a few statutes.

Gheorghe Explains: Some Gheorghian Election Observations

I've been pondering the election results in a stunned state of surprise and sadness. To avoid feeling worse I forced my brain to take a Gheorghian approach to processing this kerfuffle. Here are some observations.

* If, during a discussion about women, a man tells you that he likes to "grab them by the pussy," you are disqualified from hosting Access Hollywood.
* Asserting that you grab women by the pussy has no impact on your ability to be president.
* When Obama ran as a candidate of hope and change, republicans mocked him:



* When Trump ran as a candidate of change, republicans voted for him.
* Voters picked the candidate from the conservative party because they wanted change.
* Voters thought Clinton was more qualified than Trump--which I interpret to mean that Clinton was believed to be more likely to make good decisions and Trump is more likely to make bad ones--but they wanted change and Clinton was viewed as likely to maintain the status quo; thus, potentially bad change from an unqualified candidate is better than no change at all.
* Voters chose Trump because he would "get things done" despite the fact that many of the things he wants to do appear to be impractical, impossible, immoral, illegal, or combinations thereof.
* Voters wanted a candidate who would help the little guy, so they voted for the billionaire who inherited great wealth and has a history of bending the rules to make money and engaging in sharp business practices to screw over his employees and contractors.
* I'm emboldened to say whatever the hell I want at work--if anyone takes offense I can just say I'm being presidential.
* Beer-bellied white guys over age 45 like to say to me "It's been a great couple of days, huh!" while using the adjacent urinal--I guess there's something about having their dicks in their hands that makes them feel like they can open up to me on their political views.
* How am I supposed to respond to one of the foregoing guys when they ask me if I think the Clinton Foundation is the entity "buying up all these stocks" so that they can dump them and crash the market the day Trump takes office?
* Telephone polls aren't helpful if voters don't answer the phone, or if they don't even have a phone.
* Put another way, market research is useless.
* I don't know how many people on Obamacare voted for Trump or didn't vote at all, but if you're on Obamacare and you didn't come out to vote for Hillary then don't complain to me about anything.
* We should all invest in gold leaf--I foresee some serious decorative alterations to the White House.
* I'm not as bummed out as I was in 2004, I guess I've gotten used to disappointment.



* Speaking of 2004 ... once again, our president is a swaggering privileged wealthy white dunce who can't pronounce straightforward words, invents new words, favors tax cuts for the wealthy and limited government, and has a regressive view of reproductive rights. This worked out great last time around!

* The 2004 and 2016 electoral maps look a lot alike. The ghost of Karl Rove lingers!

* I wonder if hipsters will abandon the shaved-on-the-sides-and-long-on-top haircut from post-WWI and adopt the long-on-the-sides-swoopy-on-top-and-parted-from-the-armpit look from Trump.
* Why don't we still make SDB jokes around here and will we ever do so again now that Bill Clinton is out of the spotlight forever?
* An overlooked first from this election: Melania Trump is the first First Lady to be photographed prone on a fur coat wearing nothing except for high heels and a briefcase handcuffed to her wrist.

* The candidate who bemoaned that the election was rigged before the votes were cast won the presidency despite the fact that he got fewer votes than his opponent.
* If you want to have more of an impact on presidential elections, simply move to Florida or Ohio and vote.

Trumpty Trump Advises Us All To Just Grab 'Em In The Biscuits

Digital Underground was a relatively popular hiphop group in the late 1980's. Their most popular song was "The Humpty Dance" in which group "member" Humpty Hump stated "I'm the one who said just grab 'em in the biscuits!" which was a reference to another song on the same album, "Doowutchyalike" in which Humpty Hump implored women thusly: "Homegirls, for once, forget you got class, see a guy you like: just grab 'em in the biscuits!" I refer to Humpty as a "member" of DU because he was Shock G's alter ego--he put on a fake nose, spoke in a fake voice, and adopted the personality of a nerdy lecher.

About 25 years later, presidential candidate DJ Trump got into hot water when video footage surfaced of him encouraging the nephew of former president George H.W. Bush that, upon seeing beautiful women, he should grab 'em in the biscuits, albeit less euphemistically. There was immediate hue and cry from the fifth estate.

DJ Trump's wife Melania rushed to his aid with a press release, stating that the man in the video is not the man she knows, that this nerdy lecher Trumpty Trump character in the video is merely one of DJ Trump's alter egos and that the real DJ Trump is worthy of leading the free world. This was one of the first, if not the first, public statements from Melania after giving a speech in which she bit lines from one of Michelle Obama's speeches--once Melania's status as a sucka MC was discovered she went underground.

In a stunning turn of events, Republicans holding elected federal offices felt that Trumpty Trump's advice to Lil Bush was unbecoming of a presidential candidate. In a moment of tremendous courage, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) withdrew his support for DJ Trump, noting that he cannot look his 15-year-old daughter in the eye and tell her what Trumpty Trump said. Seriously, he said "My wife and I, we have a 15-year-old daughter, and if I can’t look her in the eye and tell her these things, I can’t endorse this person." Here's the video.



I guess this means that Rep. Chaffetz can look his daughter in the eye and tell her that Mexicans are rapists; that Gonzalo Curiel is not qualified to judge non-Hispanics because he is of Mexican ancestry; that we should discriminate against immigrants based on their race, religion, or nation of origin; that we should ban Muslims from entering the country; that it's presidential to discuss the size of one's penis; that Saddam Hussein was and Vladimir Putin is strong and effective leaders; that John McCain isn't a hero for his service; that Muslim Gold Star parents don't deserve respect.

Predictably, many Republicans are now walking away from DJ Trump and his Trumpty Trump character. What a bunch of buffoons. After all the atrocities DJ Trump spit on the mic, they expect me to believe that this new misogyny in a litany of woman-hating quotes is the final bridge too far? Of course it isn't. If Trump had a snowball's chance against Hillary they'd still be standing with him. Now that he's tanked in the polls and the debate they're jumping ship at the first opportunity.

I detest the Bush and potential Clinton dynasties. I am disgusted by the idea that the past five presidencies could be held by only three families. It runs against the Founders' intent and common sense--what's the likelihood that four of the best qualified people to be president are contained in two generations of two families? I probably would have voted for any reasonable Republican candidate who didn't run on a platform involving "more guns and more god" as a plank.

Instead I'm voting Democrat on the entire ticket. The top of the ticket is deeply flawed but greatly preferable to the alternative, and the rest of the slate cannot possibly have less integrity than the clowns on the other side of the aisle in Washington.

Hopefully DJ Trump and his Trumpty Trump shtick will fade into relative obscurity like Shock G and Humpty Hump. But I wouldn't count on it.

Gheorghe Endorses

I've long held that a third-party candidate with a legitimate platform of social tolerance and fiscal competence would have a chance at winning national office in this country. I've held that, in full knowledge that the political machines of our major parties make such a thing impossible. But I'm an aggressively optimistic and/or naive motherfucker. And, as Muhammad Ali told us, "impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it."

But, nah, it's impossible.

That won't stop us, though. Quixotic quests and contrarian dipshittery are our stock in trade.

At this point, our political analysis bona fides are well established. We won't belabor it. But seriously, people are waiting anxiously for our endorsement. It'll move markets.

Let's dispense with the obvious right away. There's no chance in this world or the next that this blog would ever support the most dangerously inept and unqualified major party candidate in the history of our republic. The Republican Party, such as it is at this point, has committed malpractice bordering on treason. We're solidly #NeverTrump.

Which leaves us no choice, I guess. A reluctant Clinton endorsement, then.

Unless...is that...it's...that's Gary Johnson's music.

Only twice, in 1980 and 2012, has the Libertarian Party garnered more than 1% of the popular vote in a Presidential election. Despite that daunting math, the party has developed an infrastructure that enables it to get on the ballot in all 50 states, and is a credibly organized political movement. This year, in what is by any measure, the most unusual national political climate in our lifetimes, the party's gone one better in nominating two well-known, generally well-regarded professional politicians as its standard-bearers.

"I'm high, probably." "Cool, I'm mostly drunk!"

As Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson gained some measure of notoriety from his support for marijuana legalization. Bill Weld, the former Governor of Massachusetts, was elected as a Republican in Massachusetts, only slightly less unusual than a gold-shitting unicorn. The Johnson/Weld Libertarian ticket is unarguably better qualified to run the country than the GOP slate, and capable of going toe to resume toe with the Democrats.

More importantly, from the perspective of our editorial endorsement committee, Johnson/Weld espouse many of the very same ideas we hold in the first paragraph of this piece as attractive to broad swaths of the American populace. As Johnson told Stephen Colbert last week, he supports, “A woman’s right to choose, marriage equality, legalizing marijuana. Come on—let people make choices in their own lives that only people should be making.”

If that's the party platform, we don't really need to hear anything more. There are certainly elements of libertarianism that strike us as unrealistic, and lacking grounding in acknowledgement of real-world governing requirements. But there's no perfect in this election, and Johnson and Weld temper that historical criticism with actual governing experience. Even as we might be temperamentally inclined to support Mrs. Clinton from a policy perspective, we have a nearly-visceral disdain for the notion of 24 years in 32 of Clinton/Bush oligarchy.

And so for us*, after much debate, the choice is clear: Johnson/Weld '16, and a bong in every pot.

(Note that throughout this post, 'us' should be construed as the specific and unwavering opinion of every member of Team G:TB, all of our family members, and most sentient humans. We asked a lot of people about this issue.)