When the president says, ‘Ron, you’ve been so negative, that’s just not even helpful,’ I want to be helpful,” Johnson said per Politico, adding he has “downplayed what is good in the bill.”
Ron, you’ve been very negative about this shit sandwich. I need you to talk it up. In fact, why don’t you take a bite out of it? There’s a good boy.
No telling if they will actually follow the court order however. Lot of excuses still being made for why they don’t seem to think they have to.
From the article:
Summary
Agency’s plans covered by earlier ruling on mass layoffs, judge says
Judge blocked 20 agencies from downsizing pending lawsuit
Trump moving to dramatically shrink, overhaul federal agencies
June 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked the U.S. State Department from implementing an agency-wide reorganization plan that includes 2,000 layoffs.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco during a virtual hearing said her May ruling barring federal agencies from laying off tens of thousands of employees at the direction of President Donald Trump applies to the planned overhaul announced by the State Department last month.
I can’t imagine laying off 2000 from the State Department at this particular time when there’s literally a war being waged in the MiddleEast and there is so much instability around the world. Not to mention, all of this is related to so many of tRump’s confusing foreign policies to begin with.
Maybe the new Chicago pope (who, just to casually mention it, went to my alma mater*) can convince his pal, the late pope Frank, to work some heavenly mischief.
*where we learned to write ridiculously long sentences filled with parenthese and commas including the sacred Oxford one.
Was reading a NY Times piece on Bobby Brainworm this morning and ran across this phrasing (emphasis mine)
In dismissing all 17 members of an influential Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory panel on Monday, Mr. Kennedy cited what he said was a history of conflicts of interest that he claimed made those experts a “rubber stamp” on approving vaccines. But adding members who assisted in legal cases that were either against vaccine makers or that suggested widespread vaccine-caused harm raises questions about a different form of potential bias.
While the legal involvement of the three new panelists does not appear to violate the rules, critics of Mr. Kennedy said it created the appearance of a conflict.
Can’t anyone just say these guys have a conflict of interest as big as Mount Rushmore? What the hell are we bothering to pretend about anymore?