Joy Reid on Bush in 2009: 'Investigate The Bastard'

    In 2009, Joy Reid posted the below article on her blog using a photoshopped picture of President Bush holding the flag and giving the finger. [The Internet Archive appears to have deleted old The Reid Report archives now.] The article was about a poll regarding investigating allegations of torture by the CIA under Bush.

    Earlier today I wrote about Reid referencing a malicious rumor about an affair between Bush and his secretary of Condoleezza Rice. Reid has apologized for some of her old posts, but has yet to address either of these.

Joy Reid's Old Blog Photo: 'Condi Rice with (future political baby daddy?) John McCain'

    On her now-defunct The Reid Report blog in 2008, Joy Reid went after George W. Bush's secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. As then-presidential candidate John McCain was considering his vice presidential choice, former Bush administration Dan Senor floated Rice's name as a possibility for the position ultimately filled by Sarah Palin. Reid posted a photo of McCain and Rice with the caption "Condi Rice with (future political baby daddy?) John McCain."

    Earlier in 2008, Reid referenced a vicious, left-wing conspiracy theory regarding an alleged affair between Rice and President Bush. Reid wrote:

[Rice] has been a middling secretary of state, with few real accomplishments to show for her sojourn with George W. Bush (then again, nobody who's hung around that clod has much to show for it after nearly two terms.) We don't know much more about her than that (unless you believe the stuff about her being Dubya's girlfriend ... she'd have to have pretty poor taste in men...) [screenshot below]

    Reid has apologized for some of her old posts after suggesting hackers had written the more controversial passages that were found on archived copies of her blog. The Wayback Machine (archive.org) seems to have since deleted at least some of the archives, but other copies remain elsewhere as of this date [at this point, I am not linking to those archives to avoid further scrubbing of the record.]

    Personally, I have no desire to see Reid fired from her current position at MSNBC, but rather simply take responsibility, apologize when necessary, and show a willingness (along with the rest of the media and the public) to forgive old, intemperate or immature remarks. Who knows, I may need similar consideration someday myself. 

Joy Reid's 2008 Anti-Hillary Blog: Mahatma Hillary

    In 2008, as Hillary Clinton battled Barack Obama for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Joy Reid threw her support behind Obama. Part of Reid's efforts to support Obama was a satirical website entitled "MahatmaHillary.com."
    Reid's site declared that is was "dedicated to all of those who have been put off by Senator Clinton's negative campaign for the White House. Its purpose is to try and recapture the warmth of HRC, while giving a nod to her grandiosity and historic accomplishments over 35-plus years of service. Most of you probably don't know all the good that Hillary has done. Hell, I know I didn't..."

    The site was short-lived, consisting only of 11 entries, but placed Hillary, Forrest-Gump-like in various historical settings, such as the moon landing and Nixon's trip to China:

    When Clinton suspended her campaign in June 2008, Reid finished out the blog with a conciliatory post, noting:

"I have been a harsh critic of the Clinton campaign, having come into the primary last January as a die-hard Clinton Democrat, who became both incredibly inspired by Barack Obama and sorely disappointed with the negative trajectory of the race, which I feel was driven by the former president and the Senator from New York, as well as by some of her senior advisers. Today, I think Hillary took a step back toward the grace that people like me had long expected of her."

    Reid linked to the MahatmaHillary blog from her also defunct and much more controversial Reid Report blog that has landed Reid in so much hot water lately.

    The MahatmaHillary blog is still accessible (as of this posting) via the Internet Archive, unlike the Reid Report blog which appears to have been scrubbed by the Wayback Machine:

    However, I saved some screenshots of a few rather shocking Reid Report blog posts that I will be posting soon. Stay tuned.

Is President Trump Spiking Maiden Names? Speak With Authority Investigates!

    Let me just say up front: this is trivial.

    OK, now that that is out of the way: Remember that story about Donald Trump asking GOP Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel to drop her maiden name because "Rommey" bugs him? Via the Washington Post:

Before Ronna Romney McDaniel took over as Republican National Committee chairwoman earlier this year, President Trump had a request: Would she be willing to stop using her middle name publicly? 

Trump followed up by saying in a lighthearted way that McDaniel, the niece of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, could do what she wanted, according to two people familiar with the comments. But the change was soon plain for all to see. Though she had used her maiden name for years in Michigan, where her grandfather George W. Romney had been governor, McDaniel dropped “Romney” from most official party communications and has rarely used it since.

    Turns out that all the way through July 6, 2017, Ms. McDaniel had her name on the GOPChairwoman Twitter account as "Ronna RomneyMcDaniel":

    By July 12 (the next archived version available), the Romney was gone! Now it looks like this:

    I contacted the GOP about the change, but to my great surprise, I received no response. Nothing leaped out at me when perusing the news during the week of the change that would explain the timing.
    So what are we to make of this maiden name eliding (elidation?)? If Mike Huckabee goes off the Trump reservation, will @SarahHuckabee suddenly become SarahSanders? Bate your breath!

In California, Undercover Video of Abortion Clinics, Bad; But For Smog Tests, Great!

    This week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra charged two pro-life activists from the Center for Medical Progress who recorded secret video of Planned Parenthood representatives discussing selling baby parts from abortion. The two are charged with 15 felonies for violating privacy laws (a questionable decision in and of itself, as I noted on Twitter.)
    Becerra replaced Kamala Harris as CA's attorney general when Harris was elected to the US Senate in 2016. Harris began the investigation of the CMP's secret videos, including arranging an FBI raid of one of the defendant's homes.
    Harris, however, has not always taken a dim view of undercover video. In a 2014, Harris used undercover surveillance video to nab a... smog test scofflaw (scoughlaw?).

    So undercover video to reveal abortion industry misconduct and fraud: bad! Smog test fraud? Good! Thanks, California.

Company That Put Up Fearless Girl Statue Has 5 Women on 28 Person Leadership Team

⚡️ “Fearless Girl”
Company that put up Fearless Girl statue has 5 women on 28 person leadership team https://t.co/De9YT0rmmK

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) March 15, 2017

State Street Global Advisors has not responded to a request for comment.

Short Summary of Obamacare and Proposed 'Repeal and Replace'

1) Congress passes law to give lots of people free stuff.
2) Congress considers repealing law.
3) Headlines: People will lose free stuff.

Heads Up

    When I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh, there were times when he would warn listeners that he was going to be talking about something they might not want to hear or they might not want their children to hear. He'd advise them to turn off their radios for a few minutes, and then count down, "five... four... three..." He'd say, I don't want anyone complaining, because I warned you...
    I am going to post something soon for which I am giving a similar caution. For years, I have had on this site a "I have a fairly low tolerance for bad/crude language" warning posted over there (--->), and this coming post certainly fits the bill, but I think it's important enough to post anyway.
    This warning post may come across as disingenuous hype designed to get more attention, but (unless I am self-deceiving,) it's really not.
    In any case, don't say I didn't warn you...

President-Elect Trump Selling 'Official' 45th President Merchandise

    Donald Trump will not be inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States until January 20, 2017, but that isn't stopping the president-elect from selling "President of the United States of America - Trump / Pence" stickers, t-shirts and buttons. The presidential products have similar descriptions, but all of them say "Show your support for the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump."

    The "President of the United States" merchandise is distinct from the "president-elect" merchandise that the Trump Campaign also began selling post-election.  Notably the "President" t-shirt says "2016" even though Trump will not assume the title until next year.
    The Trump is also selling the "Official USA 45th Presidential Hat":

    Although the hat is marketed as the "Official USA 45th Presidential" hat, the funds will fund Trump's campaign, not the USA.
    The president-elect's transition team did not respond to a request for comment on Trump's apparent trading on the office of the president for financial gain.

Kerry: 'I Fault My Country For... Not Stepping Up Sufficiently, Financially and Otherwise'

    Secretary of State John Kerry received the Medal for Leadership from the London-based Benjamin Franklin House last week for his work as a US diplomat, but took the opportunity to scold his country for "not stepping up sufficiently, financially and otherwise" to deal with world problems. The remarks seem curious coming in the context of the closing months of Kerry's fours years as secretary of state and Barack Obama's eight years as president.
    Kerry spoke of population growth, climate change and global "conflict and governance" issues, but assured his audience that "[a]ll of this is manageable if we lead, if we step up, if the Western world will do the things that we have in our capacity to do".

And the world right now is in need of leadership as never before, perhaps. I can’t – hard to say “never before” when you’re in London and Winston Churchill did what he did, but we have serious, monumental kinds of problems that we face, which is a clash of technology and modernity and culture and religion, and a group of people who are so nihilistic that there’s not even an ideology around which they organize themselves. They just want to destroy and take you back to a place where you have to live according to what they say and what they ordain, and it changes. Who knows when or how – there’s no rhyme or reason except for their brutality and their hate for people who represent something different.

So I look at a world where the population is going to go from 6 billion to 9 billion, where the planet is warming at a rate that is beyond alarming, where we see conflict and governance that are deeply troubling, notwithstanding our best efforts to build capacity and so forth. So – but all of this is changeable. All of this is manageable if we lead, if we step up, if the Western world will do the things that we have in our capacity to do. And I fault my country and others for, frankly, not stepping up sufficiently, financially and otherwise. We’re the richest country on the face of the planet. We have $18 trillion economy, yet we put only one penny of every single dollar that we spend into everything we do around the world. It doesn’t make sense when you see millions of children who need to be educated, people who need to be kept out of the clutches of these nihilists. It’s a major challenge. [emphasis added]

    The secretary of state also appeared to take a veiled shot at Britain's decision to leave the European union:

And finally, I’m glad to receive this because I believe that this is a special moment in world history where regardless of how you manage Brexit, we need to show leadership together going forward on every issue from climate change to the oceans, which you mentioned, Sir Bob, to the vexing challenge of religious exploitation and terrorism. [emphasis added]

    Kerry noted he was "really honored to receive this [award] for probably – well, several reasons, but first and foremost the special relationship between [Britain and the US]," and that while he "will soon be leaving being Secretary, [this award] will stay with me as a down payment on the things I need to do with the rest of my life."

Maryland's Obamacare Website: Female Doctor, Male Patient Examination is... Funny?

    Via Maryland's Obamacare site: Watch this clip and imagine if a male doctor and a female patient were portrayed:

        Funny? Outrage? I honestly don't know currently in our society.


UPDATE: If the video above doesn't work for you, try this link.

Planned Parenthood 2002 Fact Sheet: "Fetal Organs and Tissues Under Definition of 'Human Organs'"

    Secretly recorded videos of Planned Parenthood staff casually discussing the harvesting of post-abortion fetal body parts are raising disturbing questions about the organization's involvement in the fetal tissue donation market. Planned Parenthood's PR firm, on the other hand, refers to the practice as a "humanitarian undertaking," and in recent days Planned Parenthood has touted the benefits of fetal tissue research. The head of Planned Parenthood even tweeted a quote from a New England Journal of Medicine editorial which says, "Planned Parenthood, its physicians, and the researchers who do this work should be praised, not damned."
     Despite the apparent pride with which Planned Parenthood views its role in the fetal tissue and organ market, the organization's website is strangely silent on the practice. A search of Planned Parenthood's website for information on fetal tissue donation and research reveals only recent comments and statements since the release of the videos. The site includes eight "fact sheets" concerning abortion, but there is nothing about fetal tissue donation/research in any of those nor any of the other fact sheets, either. A special section of the website is specifically designed to answer questions about abortion and the various options and considerations of which women may have questions, but this section is likewise silent about fetal tissue donation. Elsewhere on the site is a nine page document entitled "Policy on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research," but again there is no specific mention of fetal tissue research.
     Planned Parenthood, however, has not always avoided the issue. An archived version of the organization's website from 2002 includes a footnoted fact sheet of some 2,200 words entitled "Donating Fetal Tissue for Medical Treatment and Research." Early on, the fact sheet addresses some of the basic rules that are supposed to apply when a fetal tissue donation takes place [citations excluded here and following]:

A woman's choice to donate to medical research tissue that she has aborted begins and ends with her. Federal and state laws have been specifically written to ensure that her choice to donate tissue from her abortion to medical research is made in an informed and ethical manner. First, she is legally required to give her written consent to have an abortion. Only after she has consented to have an abortion can she provide the necessary written consent to donate the fetal tissue. She cannot be paid for the donation. She cannot know or designate the recipient. 

     Following this is a paragraph that reflects Planned Parenthood's present day "humanitarian undertaking" characterization of fetal tissue donation, suggesting that a woman may mitigate her "sense of loss" with the "social good" of tissue donation from her abortion:

Knowing she can donate tissue from her abortion to potentially lifesaving medical research may help a woman turn an unintended pregnancy about which she may feel a sense of loss into a social good. The choice to donate often gives solace to women who may need to end their pregnancies.

     The document also includes a section entitled "The Medical Promise of Embryonic and Fetal Tissue", which says in part [emphasis added]:

Embryonic and fetal tissue consist of tissue or cells from a nonviable human embryo or fetus that has been obtained through a spontaneous or induced abortion, or stillbirth...

Researchers customarily obtain embryonic cells and fetal tissue through private arrangements with individual, nearby obstetricians. Due to its fragile nature, the tissue must be immediately transported by researchers to their laboratories or some other location where it can be safely stored and kept from deteriorating.

While solid organs are obtained and distributed through the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, there is no formal, organized, national network for procuring and distributing embryonic and fetal tissue. Organizations interact directly with private laboratories or pharmaceutical companies that perform medical research with embryonic and fetal tissue. They are often reimbursed for evaluation, preservation, storage and transportation of the tissue.

     Laws that "protect women" and also regulate fetal tissue donation are discussed as well. In this section, Planned Parenthood notes that fetal organs and tissues fall under the definition of "human organs" according to federal law [emphasis added]:

There are two principal federal laws and numerous state laws that apply to the use of embryonic cells and fetal tissue for medical transplantation and research. 

The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), adopted by Congress in 1984, provides for donations of organs and tissues for research or transplantation. NOTA was amended in 1988 to include fetal organs and tissues under the definition of "human organs" (USCA, 1988). 

     This section also discussed President Bill Clinton's executive order, shortly after taking office, lifting the existing ban on the use of federal funds for fetal tissue research, and also Congress's actions to mitigate the effects of that order:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 specifically authorizes federal support for research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes, whether the tissue is obtained after a spontaneous or induced abortion or a stillbirth. Congress passed this act after President Clinton's executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research that was put in place during the Reagan administration. The act requires a woman to consent — in writing — to the abortion before the option of tissue donation is discussed. It prohibits her from knowing or restricting the identity of the recipient. It requires that she be informed of her physician's interest, if any, in the research to be conducted with the tissue. It also prohibits the alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy, if such alteration is made solely for the purpose of obtaining the tissue. Penalties for violating this law include a fine or up to 10 years in prison, or both.

     Some of the videos recently released have called into question whether or not some Planned Parenthood clinics are engaged in an "alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy" in order to preserve the quality of the fetal organs and tissue obtained during abortions thereby increasing the value. The Planned Parenthood fact sheet also noted the prohibition on the sale of organs and tissue, with the caveat of "reasonable payments" being permitted to cover expenses:

Both NOTA and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 prohibit the sale of human organs and tissues for research or transplantation. Both do permit, however, "reasonable payments" associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the tissue.

     Finally, the fact sheet discusses an event from the late 1990s that mirrors the circumstances surrounding the release of the secretly-recorded videos this past July. A pro-life group, Life Dynamics Incorporated, made similar charges about abortion providers profiting from fetal organs and tissue obtained from abortions. While Planned Parenthood considered the accusations largely discredited, the evidence was clear enough to prompt a statement from the organization decrying the "about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women," a euphemism for selling fetal organs and tissue for profit:

In an attack on research using fetal tissue, the anti-choice organization Life Dynamics Incorporated accused abortion providers of performing abortions to profit from the sale of embryonic and fetal tissue (Life Dynamics Incorporated, 1999). Subsequently, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for congressional hearings to investigate so-called "trafficking in baby body parts for profit" (H.R. 350, 1999). The House Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment conducted a meeting in March 2000. One key witness testifying about alleged abuses was discredited, and another key witness failed to appear and was held in contempt of Congress. Although no actual "trafficking" was conclusively identified in the hearings, Planned Parenthood went on the record to say that "Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and is deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women."

     While Planned Parenthood and its allies today continue to deny they are engaged in the sale of fetal tissue for profit, one of the private companies that supplies researchers with the fetal tissue and organs obtained from Planned Parenthood and other clinics is not shy about touting profits from the process. Even after the recent accusations and denials by Planned Parenthood and others, StemExpress, a tissue supplier featured in some of the secretly recorded videos, has not revised the "partnerships" portion of its website that speaks of "financial profits" and their "program that fiscally rewards clinics" who supply the "human tissue products," including "fetal":

     While Planned Parenthood avoids addressing fetal tissue donation on its website, the organization clearly participates in the process with some of its top national officials either appearing in the secretly recorded videos or defending the practice in the media. The 2002 fact sheet noted that "there is no formal, organized, national network for procuring and distributing embryonic and fetal tissue." Statements on the secretly recorded video by at least one Planned Parenthood official seemed to suggest the organization might be interested in remedying that omission. Now that a light is being shined on the present state of this disturbing supply chain, those plans may be scuttled for good.

Hillary Clinton Campaign Fundraises With Reception After Tony Bennett-Lady Gaga Concert... in London

     Here's an opportunity for Everyday Americans from the Hillary Clinton campaign: a reception with Tony Bennett after his upcoming concert with Lady Gaga on June 9th. But have your passport handy. The concert is at Royal Albert Hall in London, and you'll need your "US Passport Number or Green Card Number" in order to sign up:

     The good news is that there doesn't seem to be a minimum donation: at least I got passed the first screen with $1.25. The bad news is you still have to spring for airfare to the U.K. (That minimum wage increase can't come soon enough!)
    By the way, from the wording of the announcement, apparently Lady Gaga is otherwise occupied and only Bennett will be at the reception. As a matter of fact, it's not even clear whether or not Mrs. Clinton will be there (the campaign did not respond to an email inquiry.) But on the other hand, she's a busy woman. After all, just four days after the concert, she's got a campaign to (re)launch.

Update: Using the Washington Post's Hillary Clinton font generator, I made this:

In case you missed it above, that's the name of the Bennett-Gaga tour. The campaign can thank me later.


UPDATE: This article originally said "Fund Raises" in the headline instead of "Fundraises". That was probably a mistake.

Someone (Ahem) Did a Statistical Analysis of Vox.com Photos, And It's Actually Pretty Depressing

    The other day, Vox.com ran a piece entitled "Someone did a statistical analysis of New Yorker cartoons, and it's actually pretty depressing." The semi-serious article presented the findings in the "semi-satirical journal Proceedings of the Natural Institute of Science" regarding the race and gender of characters in the semi-iconic New Yorker cartoons. The study found that "[o]ut of 1,810 total characters, 1,277 (about 70.6 percent) were male, and 1,714 (94.7 percent) were white." Vox writer Joseph Stromberg argues that there is a "need for accurate representation of nonwhite guys", and not just in movies and on TV. Stromberg quotes Amy Rothschild of the FiveThirtyEight blog asserting that it's a problem "[w]hen whole groups of people appear as stereotypes or not at all[.]" Rothschild was referring to children's books, but Stromberg says "adults are impressionable, too."
     After reading the article, I became curious about what impressionable adults might find to skew their something-other-than-the-content-of-a-persons-character worldview on the site where the article appeared, Vox.com. Since Vox does not regularly produce cartoons, I decided to use as a proxy a Google search of the Vox.com site of the first 100 facial images since the beginning of 2015. (Small sample size, but I have staff limitations.) You won't, as they say, believe what happened next:

    Read 'em and weep:

• 81% "white dudes", as Vox likes to say
• 9% women, all white
• 10% non-whites (and four of them are President Obama)

     Others may come up with slightly different figures. I am particularly bad at guessing a person's race (maybe that's a good thing?)
     Anyway, to try to eliminate the possibility that Google itself is the culprit in white-male-skewing the results, I also conducted a general (the whole web) image search for "faces" since the beginning of the year.

     At a glance, the results seem more eclectic (certainly more women than men), but I did not conduct a full statistical analysis (again, staffing issues...).
     I decided to do a few more for comparison. Here's the New York Times:

     Looks like quite a variety.

     How about MSNBC?

     Whoa. Elizabeth Warren is looking pretty lonely there, eh, MSNBC?
   
     And finally, just for fun, The New Yorker's website:

     It appears the "white dude" dominance at The New Yorker is largely confined to the cartoons.

     So what conclusions can we draw from these analyses? Got me. I think I got a C in Statistics in college. I told you we have staffing issues.

An Interview With Hillary Clinton

     Since Hillary Clinton officially announced her second run for the White House, the press has only managed to elicit thirteen answers from the Democratic frontrunner. As a handy reference, I set up a Twitter account called Hillary Answers with each of her thirteen answers in a tweet. But as long as Mrs. Clinton is avoiding talking to the press, I figured why not use this resource to conduct an interview in absentia?
     What follows is how an interview might go if Mrs. Clinton agreed to sit down with Speak With Authority:

Speak With Authority: Madame Secretary, thanks for providing some answers for this faux interview even though you're not really here. I think it's a wonderful idea.

Secretary Clinton:

Welcome. It is, it's fabulous. We're having the best time.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: Let's start off with the Clinton Foundation. Lots of controversy about foreign donations, influence, and speeches by you and your husband involving companies and foreign governments that also lobbied the State Department when you were Secretary of State. Isn't there at least an appearance of impropriety?

Secretary Clinton:

pic.twitter.com/PsBo2unDh9

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: But it's not just your opponents that have raised these questions. Even some Democrats are concerned about the apparent conflicts of interest.

Secretary Clinton:

Those issues are in my view distractions from what this campaign should be about. What I'm going to make this campaign about.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: What is it then that you are going to make this campaign about? Have you got a plan?

Secretary Clinton:

We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: But your website still doesn't have an "issues" page. When will you spell out what is important to you and what you plan to do as president?

Secretary Clinton:

I don’t know.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: Well, how about foreign policy? Do you have any regrets about the "Russian Reset" or policies regarding Libya, Iran, or the Middle East in general?

Secretary Clinton:

Those issues are in my view distractions from what this campaign should be about. What I'm going to make this campaign about.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: That sounds familiar... where have I heard that before?

Secretary Clinton:

I don’t know.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: Do you feel that the fact that you and your husband made $30 million since the beginning of 2014 helps or hurts your ability to connect with the average voter?

Secretary Clinton:

pic.twitter.com/9zK4sk6HPZ

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: So you believe the financial success of you and your husband demonstrates that "you can get ahead and you can stay ahead"?

Secretary Clinton:

I'm having a great time.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: There are some who say your "Scooby van" trip to Iowa was just a glorified sight-seeing trip that lacked substance and allowed you to avoid hard-hitting interviews like this one. Is that true?

Secretary Clinton:

pic.twitter.com/kiY1vuzuUz

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: That's all the time we have for now, mostly because I'm having trouble coming up with questions that fit one of your answers. But I trust this interview was not too uncomfortable and we'll be sitting down in person with you very soon.

Secretary Clinton:

I'm having a great time. Can't look forward any more than I am.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Speak With Authority: When do you think that in-person interview might be?

 Secretary Clinton:

I don’t know.

— Hillary Answers (@HillaryAnswers) May 13, 2015

Confirmed by ABC News: George Stephanopoulos Was Clinton Global Initiative Member in 2010, 2011

    John Sexton of Breitbart News did some more digging and uncovered additional details about George Stephanopoulos's involvement with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative that I first reported Friday. Sexton was also able to get a response from ABC News:

George Stephanopoulos’ connections to the Clinton Foundation may be more substantial than he has so far admitted. 

An archived page of the Clinton Global Initiative website lists George Stephanopoulos as a “notable member” for the years 2010 and 2011. ABC News has confirmed Mr. Stephanopoulos was a member during both years.

    Read his entire story here.

Note: Mediaite also ran a piece on Stephanopoulos and CGI based on my original story.

George Stephanopoulos Was a Member of the Clinton Global Initiative [Updated]

UPDATE: See new post including new information via John Sexton of Breitbart News.

     George Stephanopoulos, under fire for not clearly disclosing donations of $75,000 to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (via Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon), was at some point a member of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an arm of the Clinton Foundation. The foundation's website lists Stephanopoulos along with other "notable past members" of CGI, among them Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, and Greta Van Susteren, Rupert Murdock, and T. Boone Pickens:

     According to the foundation, the "CGI membership fee is $20,000 per calendar year, $19,000 of which is tax deductable [sic]." (Some complimentary memberships are available for "nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations.") Stephanopoulos has acknowledged (via CNN) giving $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation between 2012 and 2014; the Foundation's website reports Stephanopoulos as giving between $50,001 and $100,000. After an initial response, the communications office of the Clinton Foundation did not answer emailed questions regarding the duration or timing of Stephanopoulos's membership, if his membership was a paid membership, or if the tax-deductible membership fees count toward donation totals.
     Membership benefits include annual meeting attendance and various networking opportunities. At one time, membership included access to a members-only website that has "a member directory, a messaging system, and commitment information," but it's not clear if that website still exists.
     George Stephanopoulos's relationship with the Clinton Foundation goes back at least nine years. He acted as moderator of a panel discussion that included former President Jimmy Carter at CGI's annual meeting in 2006 (where he was referred to on the Foundation's blog as "the smart and funny George Stephanopoulos"). As recently as 2014 he served on a panel of judges along with Chelsea Clinton at "Up to Us, a nationwide campus competition sponsored by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative University and Net Impact", which seeks to engage students in "America’s long-term fiscal and economic challenges." Stephanopoulos also participated in the CGI annual meeting in 2007 and 2009.
     ABC News did not return an email seeking answers about what years Stephanopoulos was a member of CGI, if he paid the membership fee, and, if so, was the membership fee in addition to the $75,000 of donations he has acknowledged.

The Obama Foundation's Not-Ready-for-Prime-TIme Website... Now With Bacon Pancakes! [Updated]

    Tuesday, the Barack Obama Foundation announced the Barack Obama Presidential Center and Library will be located in Chicago, but it will likely be several years before the public gets its first look. However, for a limited time, the public can get a look at the foundation's not-ready-for-prime-time website. The site has blog entries back as far as January 2014, but as foundation activity increases as the president's tenure draws to a close, the website is ramping up. The foundation wants to be ready for whatever gets thrown at it, including the kitchen sink. Literally.

The page is filled with website samples, including... "text that people will think is awesome!"

    There's even a sample video. Ten minutes about makin' bacon pancakes.

     There's also some good news for parents:

     And science fiction fans are not forgotten:

     Presumably the website designers are not aware they have neglected to draw the blinds. I have emailed the foundation for comment. Updates as events warrant.


UPDATE: The site is fixed already, first thing this morning. Still waiting for my "thank you" email.

President Obama and the Invisible GOP Senator

    The White House has always contended that President Obama is eager to talk to and work with Republicans. In the interest of bipartisanship, the president invited Republican Senator Rob Portman to the Oval Office Thursday for a signing ceremony for the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, a bill Portman had sponsored. To commemorate the event, official White House photographer Pete Souza took a picture of the two talking after the ceremony. The photo may not find its way into Portman's scrapbook, however:

    Silver lining: If the law turns out to be a dud, Portman at least has a plausible shot at deniability.

Sports Versus Science, White House Style

    At Monday's White House Science Fair, President Obama made it clear he wanted to make sure that science and scientists are given an appropriate level of attention and respect in American society, at least on par with our sports heroes:

"We’ve got to celebrate the winners of our science fairs as much as the winners of football or basketball" —President Obama #WHScienceFair
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 23, 2015

    A little later in the day, however, that message became a little less clear as the White House released the 2015 Easter Egg Roll Talent Line-up and Program. Among the invited guests are no fewer than forty-three individual athletes or sports teams:

This year’s participating athletes include:

Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir (NCAA Women’s Basketball)
Katrina Adams (US Tennis, Retired and US Tennis Association, president)
Davy Arnaud (D.C. United, MLS)
Chris Baker (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Tornado Alicia Black (Women’s Tennis)
Bobby Boswell (D.C. United, MLS)
Calais Campbell (Arizona Cardinals, NFL)
Chris Canty (Baltimore Ravens, NFL)
Victoria Duval (Women’s Tennis)
Sean Franklin (D.C. United, MLS)
Robert Griffin III (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Markus Halsti (D.C. United, MLS)
Roman Harper (Carolina Panthers, NFL)
Angela Hucles (US Soccer, Retired and president of Women’s Sports Foundation)
Ryan Kerrigan (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Stefan Kozlov (Tennis)
Matt Lawrence (NFL, Retired)
Esther Lofgren (US Olympic Rowing)
LaShawn Merritt (US Olympic Track and Field)
Ben Olsen (D.C. United head coach, MLS)
Niles Paul (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Chris Pontius (D.C. United, MLS)
Kelly Berger Rabil (US Lacrosse)
Paul Rabil (US Lacrosse)
Rajeev Ram (Tennis)
Noah Rubin (Tennis)
Briana Scurry (US Soccer, Retired)
Torrey Smith (San Francisco 49ers, NFL)
Steve Smith, Sr. (Baltimore Ravens, NFL)
Frances Tiafoe (Tennis)
Coco Vandeweghe (Women’s Tennis)
David Wagner (American Wheelchair Tennis)
DeMarcus Ware (Denver Broncos, NFL)
Dominique Wilkins (NBA, Retired and Basketball Hall of Famer)
Brandon Williams (Baltimore Ravens, NFL)
Doug Williams (NFL, Retired and Super Bowl XXII MVP)
Caroline Wozniacki (Women’s Tennis)
Boston Renegades (Women’s Football Alliance)
D.C. Divas (Women’s Football Alliance)
US Olympic Fencing Team
Washington Capitals (NHL)
Washington Mystics (WNBA)
Washington Wizards (NBA)

And representing science? This guy:

    Forty-three to one is probably not a ratio that is going to elevate scientists to sports-star status, but I guess you have to start somewhere. You go, Sid!