Back in December, Wonkette had a post called "What Did Trump Know, And When Did He Grab It By The Pussy"? This is, of course, one of the central questions special counsel Robert Mueller is looking at in his various obstruction of justice cases against Donald Trump, and when he issues his final report, we assume it will include a full section called "He Grabbed It By The Pussy On Tuesday, Because He Learned About It On Monday." (This is how FBI reports are normally written.)

The central questions in that post were about when exactly Trump found out his first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was a literal actual foreign agent under investigation by the FBI, and what he did with that information. In a related matter, what did Trump know on that fateful Valentine's Day in 2017 when he shut the door of the Oval, slipped into something a little more comfortable, and asked then-FBI director James Comey to "go easy" on Flynn, and to "see your way clear to letting this go." Did Trump know for sure that Flynn, whom he fired the day before on February 13, was under federal investigation for being a liarfuckingliar to the FBI? Or was he just asking Comey to "go easy" on Flynn in general, like perhaps if Comey found himself and Flynn in a hardcore game of Strip Jenga?

That Wonkette post was based on a Foreign Policy report from reporter Murray Waas that shared evidence that White House Counsel Don McGahn sure seemed to know Flynn was a big stinky criminal during Flynn's short tenure as national security advisor. According to documents Waas reported were in Mueller's possession, McGahn had spent those days on his Google machine asking Siri what a big stinky criminal Flynn was, specifically researching stuff about lying to the FBI and violations of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized US persons from negotiating with foreign governments -- like, for instance, people who aren't yet national security advisor having back-channel hot tub time with the Russian ambassador about getting rid of Russian sanctions! Sally Yates warned the White House that the Russians knew Flynn had been lyin' to fuckin' ERRBODY about this on January 26. On January 27, Trump invited James Comey over for a little hot tub time of their own and tried to extract a loyalty oath from him. (Sally Yates had come to the White House to yell at Don McGahn some more earlier that day too.)

Murray Waas is back with another report, this time in the New York Review of Books, and if his reporting is correct, it sounds like Trump COMMITTED COUPLE FEW CRIMES A LI'L BIT! Indeed, according to documents Waas says he has now been granted permission to read in full, in addition to interviews with certain key players, Donald Trump knew chapter and verse what the fuck was up with Flynn, which goes a long way to proving Trump's intent to obstruct justice.

For one thing, according to a timeline reportedly written by Don McGahn, then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and McGahn told Trump that Flynn was under investigation on January 26, 2017, after Sally Yates came in and pulled the fire alarm. Indeed, the records Waas reviewed indicate that McGahn specifically told Trump that Yates told him Flynn had told very similar lies about discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador to both the FBI and Mike Pence. In other words, if this reporting is right, HE KNEW. HE KNEW HE KNEW HE KNEW HE KNEW #HEFUCKINGKNEW. (And didn't we just tell you yesterday and also one thousand other times that this Russian shit is all about sanctions?? Because it is.)

Let's do that timeline again: Trump asked Comey for a loyalty oath on January 27th; he fired Flynn on February 13; and he moved on Comey like a bitch but couldn't get there on Valentine's Day, when he asked Comey to "go easy" on Flynn. All of these dates are notably after Trump was told the truth about Flynn, according to Waas, who reports that Priebus and McGahn have testified to these facts to Mueller.

Remember how Trump's Very Good Lawyers wrote a letter to Robert Mueller in January of this year, outlining their defense on all Trump's obstruction? In it, they explained that Flynn had assured Priebus and McGahn that the FBI only stopped by to tell him how innocent he was, because that's totally how the FBI does things LOLOLOLOL go fuck yourself, liar. (This would have been February 8, according to McGahn's timeline.) According to that letter, therefore, only A IDIOT could think Trump was obstructing justice when he asked Comey on February 14 to "go easy" on Flynn.


And it's totally normal to accept a version of reality where the president asks the FBI director to "go easy" on the national security advisor he fired the day before because NO REASON! It's not like he thought Flynn was under investigation or anything!

Except for how LIE. LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE! Or at the very least, Trump's lawyers were cherry-picking the FUCK out of the available evidence about what Trump knew and when he grabbed it by the pussy. By which we mean LIE.

The point of this post is that if Murray Waas's reporting is correct, then LIE. Also Trump needs to go to jail, for this and probably a thousand other crimes. Put him in solitary because ain't nobody wanna see that orange shitface in the morning before he's had a chance to put on his make-up.

Did we mention LIE? Because LIE.

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please help, by making a donation of MONEY.

[New York Review of Books]

Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst is the senior editor of Wonkette, which means he is the boss of you, unless you are Rebecca, who is boss of him. His dog Lula is judging you right now.

Follow him on Twitter RIGHT HERE.

Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.

In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"


In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!

Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!


Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc