From Gordon Sondland’s prepared statement to the impeachment inquiry:

On May 23, 2019, three days after the Zelensky inauguration, we in the U.S. delegation debriefed President Trump and key aides at the White House. We emphasized the strategic importance of Ukraine and the strengthening relationship with President Zelensky, a reformer who received a strong mandate from the Ukrainian people to fight corruption and pursue greater economic prosperity. We asked the White House to arrange a working phone call from President Trump and a working Oval Office visit. However, President Trump was skeptical that Ukraine was serious about reforms and anti-corruption, and he directed those of us present at the meeting to talk to Mr. Giuliani, his personal attorney, about his concerns. It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the President’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani. It is my understanding that Energy Secretary Perry and Special Envoy Volker took the lead on reaching out to Mr. Giuliani, as the President had directed.

And that right there is stark raving mad. Why should they talk to Trump’s personal anything about a foreign policy matter? What business does Trump have “directing” them to do so? None in both cases.

Indeed, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I were disappointed by our May 23, 2019 White House debriefing. We strongly believed that a call and White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was important and that these should be scheduled promptly and without any pre-conditions. We were also disappointed by the President’s direction that we involve Mr. Giuliani. Our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the President’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine.

Which is not so much a “view” as just obvious reality. How should an administration deal with other countries? By going out and collecting some random people to do the work, or by continuing to rely on the people trained and qualified and security-cleared to do the work? The president’s personal lawyer should no more take over that work than the president’s dentist should.

Sondland and Volker and Perry decided obeying the order to rope in Rudy was preferable to ditching the meeting, so they went ahead.

But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani’s agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President’s 2020 reelection campaign.

It’s not the kind of thing you’d expect…from a normal president.

Trump’s hair will be on fire all day today.

I feel somewhat shattered at the loss of Elijah Cummings. Dan Rodricks in his hometown paper, the Baltimore Sun:

“We are better than this.”

Elijah Cummings said that over and over again, urging his fellow Americans and his fellow Baltimoreans to believe it — and to be it.

The U.S. congressman from Maryland, who died early Thursday morning at 68, was a long-time warrior for justice, truly a great man. He spoke truth to power even as a member of the power class. And the Democrat was not above pleading, with rival Republicans or constituents, for what he knew was right.

He chose politics and public life because he wanted a better country, a better city. Immersed in the complex problems of both, he kept his eyes on the prize all through his career. As a member of Congress, with oversight of government operations at a range of levels, Cummings was in the role of examiner, and what he examined was usually bad — from incompetence by bureaucrats to price gouging by corporations to the abuses of power of the executive branch. And so his words were often aspirational, uttered while mired in mud, yet pointing us toward a mountaintop.

He knew what he wanted, and he knew what he did not want.

He did not want the children of migrants separated from their parents at the border. “We are better than this,” he said.

He wanted the president to be civil, courageous, kind and honest. He wanted the president to abide by the Constitution.

“We are better than this. We really are,” Cummings said in February, after Michael Cohen described his sordid undertakings as the president’s one-time lawyer. “As a country, we are so much better than this.”

But wait, there’s more! James Kirkup introduces us to Deputy Chief Constable Julie Cooke of Cheshire Police.

DCC Cooke has rather a big job in Cheshire, where there were more than 30,000 violent crimes in the year to August 2019 and the monthly rate of violent crime is up by more than 50 per cent in the last year. 

Fortunately, however,  DCC Cooke has still managed to find time to make a video marking International Pronouns Day.

Marking what??!

No, I know what; I had heard of it; it’s just that it’s so idiotic, and so idiotic-squared that anyone is paying attention to it, let alone making police videos about it.

If you’re not familiar with that occasion, the DCC is here to explain that pronouns are very important and we should always take care to use the pronouns – he/she/they/ze/whatever – that other people want us to use for them. This is especially important to “people who identify as transgender and gender non-conforming,”  DCC Cooke says.

That it, it’s especially important to people delusional enough to think they can change sex and narcissistic enough to think they can force the entire world to pretend their delusion is true. A somewhat niche market, I’d have thought.

The DCC tweets:

Today marks #pronounsday – seeking to make sharing, educating and respecting personal pronouns commonplace. @pronounsday

How is this any of the police’s business?

“It is so important to understand the pronouns that somebody wishes to be used for them,” the uniformed DCC tells us in her video, filmed in front of a Cheshire Constabulary background – just in case we were in any doubt about whether this is an official police communication.

“Being misgendered can have a huge impact on somebody and their personal wellbeing. It also can be used as a form of abuse for them, and that just isn’t right,” DCC Cooke says.

But, again, what does this have to do with the police? Why are the police trying to micromanage people’s language in such fine detail that they’re issuing instructions on what pronouns to use? None of it makes any sense.

More pathetic Qusilings who don’t even know they’re Quislings.

Women’s Book History:

Good morning! Just a reminder that our page celebrates things related to book history for all of the following:

– cis women
– trans women
– cis men
– trans men
– nonbinary folks

and everyone else in between! We usually post about women, but that’s because that’s our jam. We do, and always have, included trans women in our category of “women’s book history” and this stance is not up for debate. If this bothers you, we encourage you to keep scrolling. Anyone who posts harassing messages about trans women will have those comments deleted and then they will be banned from the page.

For people who are as all-powerful and privileged as women are, we sure do have a hard time being allowed to speak.

Despite professing commitment to free speech principles, today Massey University announced they would be revoking their agreement with Speak Up For Women to host their event ‘Feminism 2020’ at their Wellington Campus.

So in other words they’re going with Don’t Speak Up For Women.

Citing “external advice on its health, safety and wellbeing obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and its duty of care to the University community,” Massey have once more proven that they are willing to cave to activist intimidation tactics.

“The staff and students of Massey were never at any risk from our event nor from the speech of the four women speaking at it. We are a group of women wanting to talk about our rights. This should not be controversial in 2019,” says Speak Up For Women spokeswoman Ani O’Brien.

Wasn’t there an interval of a year or two when women were allowed to talk about our rights? Surely that’s enough for any sex other than the male one.

Massey University states a commitment “to the values of academic freedom, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression, as values that lie at the very heart of the tradition of a university and academic inquiry.” However, in the light of de-platforming more speakers due to pressure from activists, it appears that these statements are just lip service.

“A clear picture has emerged that shows that certain public organisations and educational institutions are completely ruled by thugs’ veto. New Zealanders should be aware that we are living in a country where a small group of activists are dictating who can and cannot speak in public spaces using threats and intimidation,” says Ms O’Brien.

“We’ve seen an extremist activist group simply threaten to protest events and in response Auckland Council cancel or move the event. Now at Massey, health and safety is being used to threaten legal action and they have cancelled. If a group of Kiwi women – mums, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, unionists, professionals, students – have been deemed too ‘dangerous’ to be allowed to hold an event, who on earth will be permitted to by these wannabe-fascists?”

Oh we all know the answer to that. People who aren’t women.

Speak Up For Women are determined that they will go ahead with their event nonetheless and are currently in the process of finding a new venue; “this has shown us once again how important it is that we continue to fight to speak openly about women’s rights.”

But also how absolutely pathetic it is that we have to.

First, this is the Daily Mail, so caution is advised – but, that said, if the facts are as stated…there’s an issue. The claim is that judges have been ordered to give harsh sentences to people convicted of “transgender and homophobic hate crimes” – that is, hate crimes against LGB and trans people. New sentencing guidelines say six months in prison should be the minimum.

But what are they defining as hate crimes? That’s the crucial question, and from what we’ve seen lately it includes dissenting from various wild truth-claims about Magic Gender Changing.

The instructions, which will come into effect on January 1, follow a series of cases in which police have been accused of launching heavy-handed investigations into transgender hate crime allegations.

This year Surrey Police quizzed a Catholic mother-of-five after she was accused of ‘misgendering’ the trans daughter of an activist on social media by using the pronoun ‘him’.

Last week Thames Valley Police launched an inquiry into possible public order hate crimes by demonstrators who put up stickers in Oxford with messages such as: ‘Woman: noun. Adult human female.’

So it appears to be at least theoretically possible that feminist women could be sentenced to six months in prison for putting up stickers that say women are adult human females.

Apparently the UK is edging toward making it a criminal act to say that women are women.

It seems there is no corresponding move toward harshly sentencing men who threaten to kill women they label “TERFs”?

Notice that feminist women don’t threaten to kill men who claim to be women, we simply say that men are not women, not even if they “identify as” women.

So women could be thrown in jail for saying women are women, while men remain at liberty to threaten to kill women for saying women are women.

The guidelines, which judges and magistrates must follow unless they can show doing so would run against justice, are the first to apply to public order offences – which include the offence of ‘stirring up hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation’.

But not sex. Yes really: not sex. Gender identity yes, but sex no. Apparently there is no such thing as hatred or contempt or oppression or exploitation based on sex, i.e. of women by men.

The number of hate crimes reported to police has reached 100,000 a year for the first time.

Home Office figures showed a 10 per cent increase this year, with a surge in allegations of homophobic and transphobic abuse.

Police must record an incident as a hate crime if a victim believes they were targeted over their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

But not sex. Not sex. Not sex. The Rachel McKinnons and Jessica Yanivs are the truly oppressed, while women are the privileged powerful domineering cruel oppressors.

White House people are upset because…they can’t keep doing whatever they want without any oversight? I guess?

Inside the West Wing, sources say, there is escalating concern about administration witnesses who are giving depositions on Capitol Hill.

Pence’s lawyer Matthew Morgan says but history and precedent.

“Instead of being accountable to the American people and casting a vote to authorize what all agree is a substantial constitutional step, you have instead attempted to avoid this fundamental requirement by invoking the Speaker’s announcement of an ‘official impeachment inquiry’ at a press conference?” Morgan wrote in a letter to House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff.

Morgan added, “Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an ‘impeachment inquiry’ against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process.”

Hmm, never before in history. Shall we draw up a list of things Trump has done that never before in history has a president done? It would be very long, and most of the things would be bad things.

Also on Tuesday, George Kent, the State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy, was the latest witness to be questioned. Fiona Hill, Trump’s former Russia adviser, sat down for more than 10 hours on Monday.

Watching this, officials are growing frustrated because they are mainly being forced to learn about what these officials divulged from news reporters. There is no White House counsel present in the room and officials are not given transcripts or readouts after they leave, one person told CNN.

Now they know how we feel.

Let’s all congratulate Dawn, Naomi and Kirsten:

Congratulations Dawn, Naomi, and Kirsten for coming First, Second, and Third – your efforts are to be commended and I’m looking forward to watching you in future races.

And there he is in all his glory:

Sport is a human right! Cheating at sport is a human right!

Trump betrayed the Kurds; Trump betrays everyone. Peter Wehner writes:

For once, Republicans have forcefully spoken out against Mr. Trump. Graham said our Kurdish allies had been “shamelessly abandoned by the Trump administration.” Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said Trump’s decision is having “sickening and predictable” consequences. Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Air Force veteran, said on Face the Nation that “leaving an ally behind … is disheartening, depressing.” He added, “The Kurds found out on Twitter, for goodness’ sake. We have left them to the wolves. And the message this is sending to our allies around the world, I think, is really going to be bad.” Senator Mitt Romney, the Republican lawmaker who has been the most willing to speak the truth about Trump, declared on Twitter, “The President’s decision to abandon our Kurd allies in the face of an assault by Turkey is a betrayal.”

Indeed it is. But betrayal is hardly new to Trump, who routinely abandons people who trust in him or the nation he leads. By now, this behavior should come as a surprise to exactly no one.

Indeed not; we’ve been watching him do it for three years and more.

Betrayal is a leitmotif for this president’s entire life. Think of how he cheated on his wives. Think of the infant child of a nephew who had crucial medical benefits withdrawn by Trump because of Trump’s retaliation against his nephew over an inheritance dispute. Think of those who enrolled at Trump University and were defrauded. Think about the contractors whom Trump has stiffed. Think of Jeff Sessions, the first prominent Republican to endorse Trump, whom Trump viciously turned against because Sessions had properly recused himself from overseeing the investigation into whether Russia had intervened in the 2016 election. Think about those who served in Trump’s administration—Rex Tillerson, John Bolton, Don McGahn, Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn, James Mattis, and many more—who were unceremoniously dumped and, in some cases, mocked on their way out the door.

He’s a man for whom self is everything and others are nothing, really nothing.

Individuals like Donald Trump, who chronically betray others, are incapable of authentic relationships or genuine human connections. They view other people solely in transactional terms. For malignant narcissists, they themselves are the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Other human beings don’t have inherent dignity; their worth is determined solely in terms of what they can do for the person who is the betrayer. If the answer is nothing, then others are dismissed, discarded, and abandoned. There is no empathy, no sympathy, no guilt or shame.

I find it’s hard to imagine what that’s like, because if the self is everything…well it’s like a nightmare, isn’t it? How can one single self matter enough to live a whole long life, even if it is one’s own?

President Trump doesn’t interpret his abandonment of America’s faithful and intrepid Kurdish ally as betrayal because he can’t even understand why betrayal is a vice. It’s like trying to explain color to a person born with no eyesight.

And so we elected him president. We should be a pariah state at this point. We are that fucked up.

Jolyon Maugham again. Sigh.

James Kirkup tweeted his Spectator piece yesterday:

A ‘transphobic’ crime wave has hit Oxford: stickers so offensive the police refuse to describe them. (The stickers say “Women don’t have penises” and “Woman = adult human female”)

Maugham replied:

Surely you can see what an ugly and destructive provocation that is?

Ah yes; women saying women are women is so ugly and destructive. How dare we.

Jane Clare Jones:

Surely you can see that female people have the right to their own ontological, legal and political category and have a right to defend that category from colonization. Oh no of course you can’t. You just expect us to be good compliant little girls and hand our existence away.

Ask yourself what on earth is going on that the dictionary definition of woman can even be considered a ‘provocation.’ Because asserting that a word means what it means could only be provocative if someone else was trying to change that meaning for their own ends couldn’t it?

Maugham of course paid no attention, and simply blocked people who disputed him. Same old same old.

Dominionism at the State Department:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech on Friday to the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) at its 2019 world conference in Nashville, Tennessee. Outlining “what it means to be a Christian leader,” while relaying family anecdotes and stories from his West Point education, Pompeo described how he applies his religious faith to government administration.

Titled “Being a Christian Leader” and promoted in his official government capacity on the homepage for the State Department, religious and civil liberties organizations have decried it as a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s intended separation of church and state.

That second paragraph is a syntactical trainwreck. The speech was titled “Being a Christian Leader” and promoted in his official government capacity on the homepage for the State Department; religious and civil liberties organizations have decried the speech and the promotion of the speech as a violation of the separation of church and state.

A complete transcript of Pompeo’s speech has been posted to the front page of State.gov, including notation indicating the audience reaction to specific lines. While politicians often speak at events sponsored by religious groups, explicit promotion of “Being a Christian Leader” is widely seen as crossing a line.

According to both religious and atheist organizations, Pompeo is welcome to his Christian faith, but in potential violation of the separation of church and state by promoting “Being a Christian Leader” in official capacities, such as the State Department home page.

Not “potential” violation of the separation of church and state, just plain in violation.

Ironically enough, I was in the middle of this when a couple of women came to the door. ?? “We just wanted to share with you a couple of thoughts from the bible.” “No.” They went away. Honestly, what makes people think that’s ok? I don’t go around knocking on strangers’ doors and telling them I want to share some thoughts from Keats or Montaigne or Orwell, what makes people think it’s acceptable when it’s the bible? It’s so rude.