Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

More About Donald's Letter

The New York Times just posted an article titled "Trump Wanted to Get Something Off His Chest, and in His Letter to Pelosi He Did," and subtitled "The letter was a diatribe that played loose with facts and sometimes disregarded them outright. A former Clinton aide called it a reflection of the president's 'id'":

WASHINGTON — The letter read like a Twitter tirade published on White House stationery. The words ran together with the cadence of a Trump rally script, just before the president veers from the teleprompter. The accusations, untruths and wayward exclamation points piled up by the paragraph.

“You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” President Trump wrote in the letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday. “By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy.”

Five and a half pages long, signed in Sharpie and sent the afternoon before the House of Representatives was due to impeach him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the letter officially underscored — for the “permanent and indelible record” — how angry he had become over the prospect of becoming only the third president in history to have this happen to him.

Multiple aides said on Tuesday that the president wanted the letter to be written because he wanted to get some things off his chest. By letter’s end, he seemed to have gotten rid of all of them.

Extensive in its grievances and laced with different words for what he perceives the House is about to do to him and what its reason is for doing it — such as “assault,” “destruction” and “derangement” — the letter was a rambling diatribe that played loose with facts, sometimes disregarding them outright.

As Mr. Trump laid out a case for his belief that the Democrats have been engaged in an unlawful crusade to end his presidency, he repeated his erroneous contention that a “so-called whistle-blower” had “started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.”

Even his historical analogies were problematic. Comparing impeachment to the Salem witch trials, Mr. Trump claimed that the Massachusetts women accused of witchcraft in the 1690s were treated to “more due process” than he was afforded during the inquiry. (Definitely not true.)

In an impeachment inquiry marked by reams of emphatic, eloquent and often emotional testimonies written by lawyers, Foreign Service officers and Purple Heart recipients, Mr. Trump’s letter stands out for how much it sounds like an unvarnished version of its signer: off the cuff, angry and ready to make an expletive-laden case against impeachment.

The White House has tried in recent days to focus on Mr. Trump’s accomplishments as president, but he framed his record in the context of his own victimhood.

“There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the success of America and its citizens,” Mr. Trump wrote.

Some of the president’s closest advisers were involved in drafting the letter, but they did not include Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel who will play a large role in a Senate trial.

Instead, Eric Ueland, the director of the Office of Legislative Affairs, led the process, with input from Stephen Miller, the president’s top policy adviser, who often scripts many of Mr. Trump’s public remarks. Michael Williams, an adviser to Mick Mulvaney, the president’s acting chief of staff, also weighed in, and Mr. Ueland’s draft was framed over the last few days.

Former presidential advisers said documents like these were always a reflection of the person in charge. To them it seemed clear that, on the eve of impeachment, Mr. Trump was interested in speaking only to his base.

“There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of strategy,” said David Litt, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama. “Nothing here suggests that he’s trying to talk to someone who is trying to make up his or her mind” on impeachment.

Michael Waldman, who served as a policy aide and speechwriter to President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, called the letter “a six-page screech” and said it was a representation of Mr. Trump’s “id.”

“Typically a president’s words are weighed very carefully, especially at a moment of constitutional significance,” Mr. Waldman said. “This just seemed to be a chance to change the news stories for a few hours and get it off his chest.”

On the other side of a sharply partisan lens that has divided Washington, Mr. Trump’s Republican allies in Congress felt differently. Representative Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania called the letter “very important” and urged his fellow Pennsylvanians to read it.

“It is a straightforward summary that provides an account of the unfair procedures by Democrat leadership, and the failure to substantiate any impeachable offense,” Mr. Meuser wrote. “This letter marks a historic night — the eve of the Democrats’ vote to undermine the American election process.”

The president made clear whom he blamed for it — Ms. Pelosi. He even belittled her for having said she prayed for him, “when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.”

“It is a terrible thing you are doing,” Mr. Trump wrote, “but you will have to live with it, not I!” (This is the article in its entirety.)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Donald Is Losing It - Updated

If things go according to plan, tomorrow Donald Trump will become only the third president to be impeached. (Who were the others? Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Richard Nixon came close in 1974, but he resigned before the House could impeach him.) In spite of the fact that he will almost certainly not be removed from office by the Senate, impeachment is a bad look for any president and there's no question that Donald really, really doesn't want to join that particular club. In a last-minute attempt to change the course of history, Donald sent a strange, unhinged, frankly ridiculous letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today.

When she received the letter, the Speaker realized for the first time how hurtful the impeachment process has been for Donald and immediately moved to shut the whole thing down. After all, keeping Donald happy is her ultimate mission in life.

Just kidding.

Back in January, the Speaker and the President had a power struggle over when he could give his State of the Union speech in the House chambers. This is what I said about Nancy Pelosi at the time:

Donald isn't used to dealing with a woman who's smarter than he is, stronger than he is and savvier than he is. Right now she also appears to be more powerful than he is. Donald sees women as either sex partners or subordinates. The women he interacts with most are employed by him and/or dependent on him. Speaker Pelosi is neither. He's not her husband, he's not her boss and he's not her daddy. She's not afraid of him and she's not intimidated by him. She's exponentially better at her job than he is at his.

It's still true. (Read the entire post here.)

Click the link below to read the letter:


This is Talking Points Memo's take on it:

In what reads as a six-page amalgamation of his go-to impeachment tweets, President Donald Trump sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) a lengthy screed to preserve his thoughts about impeachment in the annals of history.

“You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” he railed, accusing Democrats of being out to get him from the moment of his inauguration.

He called his conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky “perfect,” as he has countless times before, and cited the final electoral vote count from the 2016 election, which he has also referenced ad nauseam.

He also brought up the Mueller report, claiming that Pelosi “completely failed” since there was “nothing to find.”

The letter is peppered with unorthodox capitalization and scattered exclamation points, much in the style of his usual tweets.

As he concluded the letter with his typical marker scrawl, he intoned that he wrote the letter so that people understand the situation in 100 years and ensure that it “can never happen to another President again.”

The letter comes somewhat late in the game for the House side of the proceedings, as the full chamber is expected to vote on the articles of impeachment on Wednesday. After that, they’ll be handed over to the Senate where the trial will be conducted. (This is the article in its entirety.)

Philip Bump at the Washington Post points out that Nearly every thought he articulated over the course of six very Trumpian pages already exists on a server maintained by Twitter, Inc. Every point he makes is one that’s appeared before, in 280 characters on his favorite social media website. (Read more here.)

Twitter user The Hoarse Whisperer provides some context:











Click here to read more about the emptiness of Donald's soul. 









Tomorrow's going to be an interesting day.

Update: The Washington Post's head fact-checker weighs in:















... and Politico calls the letter a "stream of consciousness" diatribe:

Crafted more like one of his signature tweetstorms than a legal document, the letter was written “for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record,” according to the president. Replete with grammatical errors, odd capitalizations and language rarely seen in official White House documents, it castigates Pelosi for “declaring open war on American democracy” and “offending Americans of faith” in what Trump called an “election-nullification scheme.”

 White House official denied that Trump was “frustrated” and venting in the letter.

“What do you mean frustrated?” the official said. “Why would he be frustrated if there's not a single Republican that is going to vote for his impeachment? He won.”

“He's trolling her now,” the official added, referring to Pelosi. “We watched for a year and everybody said, ‘Oh she‘s so powerful now, she‘s so brilliant.‘ Show me one power move that she‘s made. Show me one action that she prevailed on this year. I‘m serious.“ (Read the article here.) 

 The Speaker herself says it's "really sick":

John Dean goes there: ...take him over to the Tidal Basin!


From Christiane Amanpour, Donald's friend Chris Ruddy urges him to testify:


Finally for tonight, Donald's not the only one who can write a letter. 750 American historians have jointly signed a letter in support of impeaching the current President of the United States. Some of the names I recognized are Jonathan Alter, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Elaine Tyler May, Jon Meacham and Ken Burns. (Click here to see the full list.)

This is the letter:

We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” as George Mason described impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.

President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.

President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with “the misconduct of public men” which involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Collectively, the President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, “the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.”

It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.

Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue, “unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents…despotic in his ordinary demeanour.” That demagogue, Hamilton said, could easily enough manage “to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day.” Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would “throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

 Update #2 on Wednesday morning: Historians continue to sign on to the letter:

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

More - Updated

It's going to be a big news day, I'll add to this post whenever I see something that interests me. I'll start with this headline at CNN.com:

"Trump incredulous after his moves on transparency failed to stop Pelosi." The story starts with this:

President Donald Trump was incredulous Tuesday as he sat in Trump Tower and watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announce she was launching a formal impeachment inquiry against him, sources familiar with the moment say. Sitting in the same building where he launched his long shot presidential campaign four years ago, Trump said he couldn't believe it, he later told people.

He had felt confident after phoning Pelosi earlier that morning. The drive for impeachment in her caucus had ramped up amid reports he pushed the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden, and Trump was hoping to head off a clash. He figured he could de-escalate tensions by speaking with her directly.

It was after that call that Trump made the decision to release an "unredacted" version of the transcript of his July call -- against the advice of aides such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who warned him it would set a risky precedent. Trump wanted to undercut the argument from Democrats that he acted inappropriately, he said, and felt he had nothing to hide. (Read the rest of the article here.)

Back in January, in a post about when Donald would be allowed to give his State of the Union address in the House chambers, I said this about Nancy Pelosi:

Donald isn't used to dealing with a woman who's smarter than he is, stronger than he is and savvier than he is. Right now she also appears to be more powerful than he is. Donald sees women as either sex partners or subordinates. The women he interacts with most are employed by him and/or dependent on him. Speaker Pelosi is neither. He's not her husband, he's not her boss and he's not her daddy. She's not afraid of him and she's not intimidated by him. She's exponentially better at her job than he is at his.

It's still true. You can read that post here. 

 Update #1. The White House has released a record of Donald's call with the president of Ukraine. How bad is it? Talking Points Memo titled their first story about it "As Bad As It Gets: Trump Ukraine Call Records Are Explosive." This is the article in its entirety: 

President Trump told the Ukrainian president to work with Attorney General Bill Barr on investigating debunked allegations around his political opponent Joe Biden, according to a White House record of a July 25 phone call between the two leaders.

The five-page record of the call has been at the center of a political firestorm over Trump’s – and his attorney Rudy Giuliani’s – efforts to pressure Ukraine into manufacturing political dirt on Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden. The Trump call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is the subject of whistleblower’s complaint from the intelligence community that has spurred House Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry, posing a grave new threat the Trump presidency.

The White House’s version of the call appears to contain notes that constitute a “memorandum” of the telephone conversation between the two leaders.

Trump referenced “Rudy,” the memorandum shows, and asks Zelensky to “speak with him.”

Trump also references “a lot of talk about Biden’s son.” He goes on to tell Zelensky, the memorandum says, that “Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that.”

Trump goes on to say that “whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”

In a Wednesday statement, Barr said that he only learned of the call “several weeks” after it took place, upon receiving a criminal referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General. Barr denied having any communications with Ukraine, and also said that neither Trump nor Giuliani had directed him to work with Ukraine on the Biden issue, or any other.

Trump also disparaged the testimony of Special Counsel Robert Mueller before Congress the day before – July 24, urging Zelensky to help with an investigation of the origins of the Russia probe which, Trump purportedly said, “started with Ukraine.” He added that Zelensky should “find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.”

“As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller,” Trump added.

“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,” Trump later told Zelensky, according to the record.

Zelensky replied that the chief prosecutor he then intended to appoint would be “100% my person.” The Ukrainian president added: “He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.”

Zelensky also referred to former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on the White House’s version of the call, who stepped down after lobbying from Giuliani, saying that “it was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%”

Zelensky later added to Trump that last time he was in the United States, he “stayed at the Trump Tower.”

Click here to see a pdf of the call summary. 

 Update #2. In the "no zealot like a convert" category, our friend The Mooch takes the prize: 



Tony Schwartz isn't a convert; he was Trump's first biographer and he's known the truth about Donald since the beginning. Here's his take, from yesterday;



This is the question I've been wondering about:


From political scientist Jonathan Bernstein:


Update #3. They really are incompetent:






If it was a secret ballot...




If anything is going to make Donald's head explode today, it's this: ("President Pence")


"They loathe Donald Trump..." An interesting comment from Joe Scarborough during his show this morning. Note that he was speaking before the call summary came out:

"Yesterday I heard in the afternoon after Nancy Pelosi’s speech, her people are already gaming this out, saying what the House is going to do, and then what the Senate was going to do and I understand that the Republicans blindly follow Donald Trump, I understand all of that but you can go back and you can look at Watergate, you can look at the Mueller Report. You see these investigations don’t always go the way the politicians or pundits planned. Nobody expected Watergate to end up where it did and here I go back to David Drucker’s story in Vanity Fair. We talked to him yesterday. And he uncovered a truth that we all know and that is Republicans on the Hill loathe, loathe, I can’t say it enough. They loathe Donald Trump personally, they blame him for the chaos that’s going on in Washington and stopping them from getting more things done. We don’t know what‘s going to happen do we? Maybe evidence comes out, we don’t know what happens when the levee breaks but that is a possibility. And the fact that nobody on the Hill is actually personally loyal to Donald Trump means we don’t know how any of this ends up."

On Monday David Drucker posted a story at Vanity Fair titled "Boom or Bust: How Republicans Are Surviving Life In The Trump Vortex;" I think that's what Joe is referring to. Read it here.

Along those same lines, this is from a story at the Washington Post posted late this morning, and yes, Mittens is still troubled:

Several Senate Republicans were stunned Wednesday and questioned the White House’s judgment after it released a rough transcript of President Trump’s call with the Ukraine president that showed Trump offering the help of the U.S. attorney general to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

One Senate Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said the transcript’s release was a “huge mistake” that the GOP now has to confront, even as they argue that House Democrats are overreaching with their impeachment effort.

A top Senate GOP aide said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is expecting Wednesday’s closed-door lunch to be eventful and possibly tense as Republicans react to the transcript and debate their next step.

“It remains troubling in the extreme. It’s deeply troubling,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told reporters Wednesday, when asked about the transcript.

...While many Republicans continue to dismiss Democrats’ impeachment efforts, cracks have begun to emerge privately as GOP lawmakers have discussed Trump’s conduct and their party’s political standing — and those fault lines could foreshadow how Senate Republicans ultimately handle a trial, should the House impeach the president, according to several lawmakers and aides. (Read the article here.)
Update #4, (probably) the last update for tonight. An interesting thought from David Rothkopf. I've stated here before my believe that the only reason Mitt Romney got himself elected to the Senate in 2018 was so he'd be in position to step up if Donald flamed out. It's also interesting that Rothkopf thinks Pence doesn't have a chance; to be clear, I don't think so either, he's too closely tied to Donald:   

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 19, 2019

This Day In History, 1994: Jackie Dies





Issue dated June 6, 1994
Image result for PEople magazine cover June 6, 1994 Jackie

In other Kennedy-related news, tonight the Kennedy Library will present the Profiles In Courage award to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:


And one more thing. On this day fifty-seven years ago, Marilyn Monroe wished the president a very Happy Birthday:




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 24, 2019

"This Is Her Prerogative"

It appears that someone on Donald's staff was finally able to explain the reality of how things work:





I wrote about this yesterday in an update to my "Donald Is Silent" post from last week, read it here.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Donald Is Silent - Updated

It's been almost 24 hours since Nancy Pelosi told Donald that he wasn't cordially invited to speak to the nation from the House chamber on January 29. It's intriguing that in that time Donald hasn't tweeted about anything. There's got to to be a reason:
Early afternoon update: Donald issued a couple of tweets this morning but so far he's been uncharacteristically silent about the Speaker of the House.

Update #2: Does the White House have the authority to dictate the Speaker's travel schedule? My guess is that the most they can do is deny her the use of a military aircraft, which is apparently what they're doing, but if postponing the trip is the right thing to do, why suggest flying commercial? This reads like a parody. 

More:




Update #3, late Thursday afternoon: Speaker Pelosi's deputy chief of staff said the following:

Pelosi deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill: "The CODEL [congressional delegation] to Afghanistan included a required stop in Brussels for pilot rest. In Brussels, the delegation was scheduled to meet with top NATO commanders, U.S. military leaders and key allies—to affirm the United States’ ironclad commitment to the NATO alliance. This weekend visit to Afghanistan did not include a stop in Egypt. The purpose of the trip was to express appreciation and thanks to our men and women in uniform for their service and dedication, and to obtain critical national security & intelligence briefings from those on the front lines. The President traveled to Iraq during the Trump Shutdown as did a Republican CODEL led by Rep. Zeldin." (From Axios, read the entire article here.)

 Update #4, on Friday morning: Another statement from Drew Hammill:

Update #5 on Wednesday, January 23. Regarding the State of the Union address, Donald insisted via letter that he's coming anyway:




At which point Speaker Pelosi dares him to:

According to the Washington Post, Donald really can't give a speech in the House chamber without the Speaker's permission, which would come via the concurrent resolution she mentions in her letter:

Legally speaking, Trump has no right to deliver the speech in the House chamber. The Constitution says only that a president must provide an update on the state of the country. This used to be done in writing (an option Pelosi helpfully suggested in her letter to Trump last week). Congress can provide the chamber and has for more than 100 years, but it must be done through a joint resolution. Pelosi earlier this month invited Trump to deliver the speech, but such a resolution has been neither taken up nor passed.

It’s worth noting that Pelosi hasn’t technically uninvited Trump. In her letter last week, she merely suggested a postponement (or a written version) because of security concerns related to the shutdown. Trump is essentially daring her to follow through.

But ever since Democrats won back the House in November, Pelosi has shown she won’t exactly back down from a fight. In fact, this is a fight she started. To give in now and just schedule the speech would be a pretty clear capitulation to Trump. He will have said, “I’m delivering the speech,” and she will have effectively said, “Okay, nevermind about all that stuff I said before.” With Democrats in control of the shutdown battle, it’s tough to see how she would do that, unless they reach some kind of compromise for the purpose of de-escalating the whole thing. (Read the article here.)

 How does this end? Stay tuned. I'll just say for now that it appears to me that Donald has underestimated Nancy Pelosi. More: 




Face it, Donald. She owns you.

Update #6, Wednesday night: That's just bad staff work. From CNN:

White House officials were caught off guard Wednesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally disinviting President Donald Trump from giving his State of the Union address from the House chamber, leaving them scrambling for a response.

White House officials had believed Pelosi wanted only to postpone Trump's State of the Union for political reasons after she sent a letter to him last week asking him to delay the address until after the partial government shutdown ended. The plan from administration officials was to call her bluff by pressing forward with plans to deliver the speech, including a new letter on Wednesday that they hoped would force her hand.

Now they're left exploring alternative venues. (Read the story here.)

Donald isn't used to dealing with a woman who's smarter than he is, stronger than he is and savvier than he is. Right now she also appears to be more powerful than he is. Donald sees women as either sex partners or subordinates. The women he interacts with most are employed by him and/or dependent on him. Speaker Pelosi is neither. He's not her husband, he's not her boss and he's not her daddy. She's not afraid of him and she's not intimidated by him. She's exponentially better at her job than he is at his. (And seriously. Isn't there anyone at the White House knowledgeable enough to have told Donald that he really can't give a speech in the House chamber unless the Speaker says he can, making this morning's letter a really bad idea? Apparently not. It's mind-boggling.)

How does this end? Stay tuned. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, January 6, 2019

The Guessing Game - Updated

What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses:

Nancy Pelosi: Her second turn as Speaker of the House, she's now the most powerful woman in government and 2nd in line for the presidency. A story about some of the other women who were sworn into Congress this week is also a possibility
Kim K and Kanye: Expecting their 4th child, via surrogate
Arie and Lauren: Last year's Bachelor is getting married in Hawaii on January 12. If the wedding goes off as planned I'll have to eat a little crow. When Arie's botched finale aired last year, in which he broke up with Becca and took up with Lauren, I said that pigs would dance on Mars before Arie and Lauren got married. I gave it six months, tops. (Read that post here.)
Daryl Dragon: The captain of 70's duo The Captain and Tenille dies
Olivia Newton John: Denies rumors that she's near death
Sara Haines: The GMA Day anchor is expecting her third child at 41
Lindsey Lohan: A new show on MTV
Kevin Hart: A conversation with Ellen, she calls on the Academy to reinstate him, will he host the Oscars after all? If not him, then who?
Kathy Griffin: Talks about her mother's dementia
Bethany Frankel: A life-threatening allergy to fish
R. Kelly: Multiple accusations of sexual abuse of women, seen on Lifetime TV's new show Surviving R. Kelly
Britney Spears: Announces a break from performing due to her father's illness
Kate Middleton: Turns 37 on Wednesday
The Golden Globes: The big show is tonight
Jazmine Barnes: A 7-year-old African-American girl was fatally shot in Texas, apparently randomly. On Sunday morning a suspect was arrested
The Bobbitts: They're back in the news, 25 years after this:

Issue dated November 13, 1993
Image result for People magazine lorena bobbitt

Stories that appear on the cover of the new issue will be highlighted in green.

Update on Tuesday morning. Marie Kondo: The organizing guru has a new show on Netflix.

Update #2 on Wednesday morning: See the new cover, featuring Nicole Kidman, here.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)