UPDATE: That pesky other blog is gone. So it’s back to just this one, and everything should now be as before.
Carry on!
Margaret Atwood: feminist vs. feminist
Margaret Atwood, feminist icon, has gotten into trouble. It’s part of what I’ve come to see as a generational war between certain older feminists who still hold to quaint old-fashioned notions such as due process, and certain younger ones who think they can toss it out the window because the only process they’re interested in is the one that says “believe everything women accusers say, if they’re accusing men of wrongdoing.”
Atwood is a well-known writer (she wrote The Handmaid’s Tale) and has always been politically leftist. She certainly has written a spirited defense of herself. She is mostly spot on here [emphasis mine]:
My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They’re not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn’t need a legal system.
Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions…
Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not…
So let us suppose that my Good Feminist accusers, and the Bad Feminist that is me, agree on the above points. Where do we diverge? And how did I get into such hot water with the Good Feminists?…
A fair-minded person would now withhold judgment as to guilt [of an accused male professor whom Atwood believes was denied due process] until the report and the evidence are available for us to see. We are grownups: We can make up our own minds, one way or the other. The signatories of the UBC Accountable letter have always taken this position. My critics have not, because they have already made up their minds. Are these Good Feminists fair-minded people? If not, they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.
I bolded that first part—that both Atwood and her feminist accusers “agree on the above points”—because I think she makes a fundamental error with that assumption. However, maybe she’s just being sarcastic and knows that this is the heart of the matter on which the two groups do not agree. It is my distinct impression that the group of young feminists angry at Atwood for defending this man and saying he needs to have a fair hearing (she is not saying he’s innocent; she’s saying we don’t know) are in marked disagreement with her about the importance of human rights. The believe that the word of a woman is as good as a trial or due process—that it replaces and can stand in for due process when a woman is accusing a man.
That second part that I bolded goes like this: “they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.” It’s an interesting point, which is that the behavior of these young feminists feeds into traditional criticism of women. And although Atwood doesn’t mention it, part of that “old narrative” is the justice vs. care argument about the difference between men’s and women’s ethics and ethical development.
You may not be familiar with that discussion, which became popular in the 1980s with the publication of Carol Gilligan’s book In a Different Voice. It’s complicated, but the summary version is that Atwood (and I) espouse the supposedly male point of view—justice—and as you might imagine, the young feminists attacking her exhibit the supposedly female one—what matters is feelings, not some abstract principle of justice for all.
Gilligan’s research has been strongly challenged, by the way, so I don’t even know if it’s true that men and women generally exhibit these ways of deciding what’s ethical (if I’m recalling correctly, Gilligan felt they were at equal stages of ethical development, just different from each other). But it’s an interesting framework with which to look at the attacks on Atwood for standing up for simple due process even for accused men.
[NOTE: The Twitter war against Atwood is quite bitter. If you want examples, see this:
If @MargaretAtwood would like to stop warring amongst women, she should stop declaring war against younger, less powerful women and start listening #metoo https://t.co/Bayf1yALV7
— Erika Thorkelson (@ethorkel) January 13, 2018
And this is of interest, too:
https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/952292948158316544
I would say where’ve you been, Matt? This is not sudden; not at all. It’s been brewing for decades. It seems as though it’s only when the Reign of Terror phase comes—feminists fighting a feminist icon like Atwood—that it becomes more noticeable to the left.]
Does this restore a teeny bit of faith in the TSA?
Usually the stories about getting contraband through security read something like this: “TSA fails to detect bombs in test.”
This tale is different:
At least seven people who said they worked for a TV crew were arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport Thursday, after they allegedly tried to film themselves going through a security checkpoint with a fake explosive device.
The Transportation Security Administration said Port Authority police arrested the group after officers detected a suspicious item in a carry-on bag…
The group covertly filmed the encounter, the TSA said.
The group did not make it past the checkpoint, because TSA officers caught the item inside the roller bag, the TSA said.
The TSA believes the group wanted to figure out if they could get through the security checkpoint with the item while filming themselves doing so. They did not, and they were arrested on multiple charges and fines by the TSA, the agency said.
Members of the group, supposedly from the aptly-named “Staten Island Hustle,” were probably mighty surprised that their device was caught on what seems to have been the very first pass. I’m a bit surprised at the repercussions for them, since it apparently wasn’t a real bomb. However, I believe that ultimately the charges will be dropped, or there will be a small fine.
Testing of the system is usually done by a government agency, not by private citizens or businesses. The results of government testing have usually been abysmal (from last November):
In recent undercover tests of multiple airport security checkpoints by the Department of Homeland Security, inspectors said screeners, their equipment or their procedures failed more than half the time, according to a source familiar with the classified report.
When ABC News asked the source if the failure rate was 80 percent, the response was, “You are in the ballpark.”…
The news of the failure comes two years after ABC News reported that secret teams from the DHS found that the TSA failed 95 percent of the time to stop inspectors from smuggling weapons or explosive materials through screening.
That report led to major changes ordered at the TSA by then”“Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. The agency opened a training academy for transportation security officers and changed procedures to reduce long lines.
Although lawmakers described the TSA’s performance in this round of testing as poor, it was an improvement from two years ago, according to the source familiar with the report.
An improvement from a 95% failure rate is nothing to crow about.
Hope springs eternal
During Obama’s presidency there was a series of revelations that made the right imagine that someone was going to be indicted or impeached or that the presidency would be declared invalid. It didn’t start with Obama’s presidency and it didn’t start with Republicans, but it certainly was prominent during the Obama administration.
Some reasons given for the impeachments or indictments or invalidations (I’ll leave out birtherism, which was only supported by a minority of the GOP) were Benghazi and the turning of the IRS into a political weapon. But they weren’t the only ones. I recall a succession of revelations (or promised revelations) and sequential hopes, all of which came to naught.
Trump hasn’t been in office nearly as long as Obama, but the anti-Trumpers have been busy with their own hopes, and they’ve been bitterly disappointed so far. But with all the ongoing investigations, hope springs eternal. There is very little doubt in the minds of the entire “Resistance” (in this case, they even give themselves a noble name) that Trump is guilty of many many crimes. And if not crimes, then he’s insane, stupid, or senile, or some combination of the three. At any rate, he must be removed from office for those reasons. Unlike during the Obama administration, the press is now on the “Resistance” side.
The so-called Steele dossier has been the focus of some of those anti-Trump hopes. But at the moment, the dossier appears to be the focus of the right’s hopes to indict someone in the Obama administration and the Democrats, based on a recent report to the House. Here’s a description:
A growing number of Republicans are demanding the release of a classified report that they say reveals political bias at the FBI and Department of Justice in the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian election meddling
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) spearheaded the effort this week to allow lawmakers to view a top-secret report compiled by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).
Scores of Republicans have since viewed the document in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility on Capitol Hill. They left expressing shock, saying the special counsel investigation into whether Trump’s campaign officials had improper contacts with Russia is based on politically motivated actions at the highest level of law enforcement.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) called the memo “shocking.”
“I’m here to tell all of a America tonight that I’m shocked to read exactly what has taken place,” Meadows (R-N.C.) said in a speech on the House floor.
“I thought it could never happen in a country that loves freedom and democracy like this country. It is time that we become transparent with all of this, and I’m calling on our leadership to make this available so all Americans can judge for themselves.”
Meadows and his allies asked GOP leaders in the House to declassify the report as part of a short-term spending bill the House passed late Thursday night. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said he wanted to follow House rules on the matter and deferred to Nunes and the Intelligence Committee.
All over the internet you can read speculation about what the repercussions could be (see this and this, for example). There is also the question of what they should be.
But then there’s the question of what they will be. I admit that, particularly after the relative lack of repercussions for the use of the IRS to harm political opponents during the Obama administration, an abuse of power if there ever was one, I have my doubts that any revelations of wrongdoing by Democrats—even of extreme wrongdoing—will lead to serious punishment or widespread and bipartisan outrage.
Now, if what’s contained in the memo proves to be not all that much, that won’t matter. But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that no matter what the memo reveals, nothing will come of it.
That’s a pretty jaded position for me to take, but prior experience points to it. Of course, if something about the history of the Steele dossier and how it was used during the election were to end up boomeranging against the Democrats, it would be richly ironic, since it was meant to take down Trump. It just may have been the dirty trick that outdid that of tricky Dick.
And so (you probably knew I was going to say this)—we’ll see.
[NOTE: I am inordinately pleased with the rhyme the dirty trick that outdid that of tricky Dick.]
[ADDENDUM: See also this by Jonathan Turley.]
You may notice a few minor and temporary changes on the blog…
…which have to do with my plans to redesign things a bit.
Why am I doing this (I often ask myself)? One reason is that my old design is really really old, and it tends to be a little glitchy when faced with all the new gadgetry that’s come into being since I moved to WordPress over ten years ago. Ten years in blog-years is like light-years.
Just as a small example, now that my archives are so lengthy, it would be nice to have a drop-down menu for them instead of that long long list of dates in the right sidebar. I’m not planning a lot of bells and whistles, just ordinary things like that which are impossible with the antiquated design of the blog right now. It not so much that it looks bad (I like the way it looks), it just lacks some functions I’d like to have.
Another thing I’m planning is to drop the “neocon” and just become “neo.” I wrote a post a while back about my reasons for wanting the change, and I’d still like to do it. The idea is to have the old URL redirect to the new site, so if you like “neoneocon” and think of me that way, that name would still work to navigate to the blog.
“Neo” has become a sort of trademark. I’m somewhat limited in choosing a new URL to go with it because the ones that seem obvious (like “neoneo”) are already taken (unless I want to be .org instead of .com, which I think is needlessly confusing).
What’s happening right now is that, for the moment, the URL “neoneocon.com” is linked with a different URL, “thenewneo.com”. Both URLs lead you to the same blog, this one (with different URLs at the top, depending on how you got here).
My original notion was that I could work out some of the design changes at the other site (“thenewneo”), in private, while keeping this one (“neoneocon”) as is. Then when I was ready to unveil the new one, it would be all spiffy and finished. Well, as with so many technical things, that plan ran into some problems. I hope to get things back to normal (just one URL, “neoneocon.com”) in a day or two.
In the meantime, though, you may notice that when you try to comment at neoneocon.com, the page loads as thenewneo.com instead. It looks and functions almost exactly the same, just with a different URL. The only other difference I’ve found is that when you comment, you may have to log in your username and email address. That’s just for a short while, though, till I get this fixed and back to relatively normal.
I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope it will be worth it in the end!
Budget negotiations and the possibility of a government shutdown
The situation as it currently stands.
I must admit I have no particular interest in writing much about this at the moment, so I’m glad to post a link instead. I have found over the years that budget negotiations are mostly theater, full of sound and fury and temporary solutions that only kick the can down the road.
Stranger in the land
Commenter “Dennis” wrote on the “Grace” thread:
So. A sleaze and a twit get together for an evening of mutual satisfaction. Disappointment ensues. Maybe it’s time to evaluate your culture.
Yeah, Yeah. I’m 73, and as Charlie Russell said : “An old man is a stranger in his own land” I can sure vouch for that.
When I read that I had just come from the memeorandum page, where I’d been glancing at the day’s big stories. It struck me that they seemed to be a combination of stupidity, triviality, and propaganda. And there’s nothing so special about today, either; it’s a feeling I have almost on a daily basis and it’s been building for quite some time.
So when I read that “stranger in his own land” quote my reaction was “Yes!” I can relate, although I’m not really old-old (as Whoopi Goldberg might say), and I’m not a man. But I feel increasingly that, although I can observe and remark on news events and/or memes du jour (among the latter would be the sad tale of Ansari and “Grace”), I seem to have an exceedingly different sensibility and outlook about such things compared to what’s current, particularly among young people.
The details of the events and stories keep changing. But I increasingly feel a sense of pessimism about where we’re going. In this post, I’m not talking about what led up to it; we’ve mined that territory a lot over the years. Right now I’m talking about my impression of the direction of the country. I know it’s a cliche that old people often think that way about young people, but that’s not a whole lot of comfort.
Which brings us in a very roundabout way to this story, in which the author of the Ansari/Grace article, 22-year-old Katie Way, unleashes a fusillade of ageist (hey, I can speak identity politics lingo, too) “mean girls” hatred at TV journalist Ashleigh Banfield, who had the temerity to criticize “Grace”:
According to report by Business Insider, HLN invited Way to appear on their network to discuss the story. She refused and sent this email to the HLN producer who invited her:
It’s an unequivocal no from me. The way your colleague Ashleigh (?), someone I’m certain no one under the age of 45 has ever heard of, by the way, ripped into my source directly was one of the lowest, most despicable things I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Shame on her. Shame on HLN. Ashleigh could have “talked” to me. She could have “talked” to my editor or my publication. But instead, she targeted a 23-year-old woman in one of the most vulnerable moments of her life, someone she’s never f”””” met before, for a little attention. I hope the ratings were worth it! I hope the ~500 RTs on the single news write-up made that burgundy lipstick bad highlights second-wave feminist has-been feel really relevant for a little while. She DISGUSTS me, and I hope when she has more distance from the moment she has enough of a conscience left to feel remotely ashamed ”” doubt it, but still. Must be nice to piggyback off of the fact that another woman was brave enough to speak up and add another dimension to the societal conversation about sexual assault. Grace wouldn’t know how that feels, because she struck out into this alone, because she’s the bravest person I’ve ever met. I would NEVER go on your network. I would never even watch your network. No woman my age would ever watch your network. I will remember this for the rest of my career ”” I’m 22 and so far, not too shabby! And I will laugh the day you fold. If you could let Ashleigh know I said this, and that she is no-holds-barred the reason, it’d be a real treat for me.
Thanks,
Katie
Katie Way is young, but she’s not in junior high, is she? See, I can be ageist, too.
As Dennis wrote, maybe it’s time to evaluate your culture.
[NOTE: Here’s what Banfield had said. At the very end there, her language wasn’t so very hifalutin, either, for a TV journalist compared to the olden days (“‘the only sentence’ a guy like Ansari ‘deserves is a bad case of blue balls, not a Hollywood blackball…'”). Then again, in my book, she’s young, too.]
Stormy Daniels told tales of Trump
Not only is Trump cognitively challenged and ill and old and crazy, but he had an affair with a porn star (“Stormy Daniels”) eleven years ago.
Hey, why not?
Except that maybe he didn’t. Just like maybe he’s not cognitively challenged or crazy or ill—and the “old” part is a matter of which side of 70 the viewer may be on.
However:
The White House, Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and Daniels have all denied that she was paid off for her silence or that the sex ever happened. In a January 10 statement released by Cohen on her behalf, Daniels said that any allegations that she and Trump had a sexual relationship were “completely false.”
That’s now. Back then (“then” being 2011, about five years after the alleged affair happened) Daniels sang a different tune. Is she telling the truth now, or was she then?
The more important question being, “At this point, does anyone care?”
Is there anyone in America who doesn’t know that Trump has a history of infidelity? Whether he was unfaithful to Melania or just his previous wives, and with whom (especially when a private citizen, as in 2006), who would be surprised to hear it was true? His history of infidelity was factored in by Americans when they voted for him.
On the other hand, according to what I’m reading about what Daniels said back then in her interview, if you take it as true (although there’s no particular reason to), Trump comes out smelling like a rose compared to poor Aziz Ansari:
She described the sex as “textbook generic.”
In the print version of the magazine, Daniels expanded further, describing the sex as “nothing crazy. It was one position, what you would expect someone his age to do.”
Once again, Trump the billionaire turns out to represent middle America!
More here:
A source tells The Daily Beast that the full, unedited interview that will run later this week is 5,500 words of “cray.” Daniels didn’t leave much out in describing the affair, which involved a few more encounters in the months following their first tryst in Tahoe.
According to the source, the transcript contains details of “[w]hat he’s like in bed, pillow talk, she talks about what he’s like down there”¦”
What would really drive the left crazy is if Trump’s brags about “down there” turn out to be true or even somewhat true. And they couldn’t really challenge Daniels on the subject, because women always tell the truth, right? Right? What’s more, as a porn star she’s somewhat of an expert on the matter of “down there.”
Various media outlets had declined to run the story earlier. That’s how shaky it must be. For example, “The Daily Beast was also chasing the story last fall, but, like several other outlets, was unable to lock it down.”
Daniels is a Republican, by the way.
Comment editing
Hey folks, for all of you (including Geoffrey Britain, who made the request today) who’ve been wanting the ability to edit your comments, I just installed a plug-in that lets you do it for five minutes after the comment is first posted. Enjoy! Now, no more excuses for typos 🙂 .
[ADDENDUM: I’m informed by GB that the corrected text doesn’t appear on the blog immediately, but it does show up after a short while.]
If you like schadenfreud , you’ll love this
Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power talk about their experiences on election night, when they had assembled a large group of other liberals and Obama officials to watch the returns and joyously celebrate Hillary Clinton’s election to the presidency. To top it all off, the event was recorded, and it seems that this documentary will someday be available to the public (I’m not completely sure about that last part—but it was filmed by HBO, and so my guess is that it will be aired).
I predict that more conservatives will want to see it than Democrats, just to savor the deliciouds schadenfreude.
But strangely enough, I’m more into identifying with Rhodes and Power. No, not with their politics, but with their stunned disbelief. If you’d had a camera on me that night, it would have recorded a strange sight indeed. I don’t remember exactly—I was in a kind of fog of shock—but there was a lot of pacing around, shaking my head, startled exclamations that I couldn’t f-ing believe it, phone calls to various people, and staring at the TV in disbelief, all interspersed with a slowly dawning joy that Hillary Clinton would never be president, which balanced with my fear of the unknown with Trump.
So I can identify with a portion of what Ben Rhodes says here, strangely enough, although other parts are the opposite of my feelings that election night. I’ve bolded the places where he describes what I felt, too:
As people who know me know, probably to a fault, I am usually not without thoughts and words. But you know, I think””I kept trying””beginning to say something, and the film shows that basically I can’t speak, because anything I was going to say was just going to be kind of a lame rationalization.
And when, in reality, you know, sometimes things are just terrible. And I think that that two layers of feelings that I had after the election, one is just on a very personal level, you know, we just spent ten years””you’re watching the film, it’s like watching yourself run the 26-mile marathon, and to just feel””and President Obama used to describe it as we’re going to hand off the baton. And it’s like you could see someone reaching back to take the baton, and suddenly nobody is there.
Because, personally, you’re feeling like, ”˜well, all these things I worked on, what’s going to happen to them?’ And this sense of, you know, you put all this time and effort and caring into different things that are now going to be threatened or attacked or undermined in some ways, it was powerful. But then, more broadly, I think, beyond just me personally was the sense of the unknown.
I mean, that’s why I didn’t have anything to say. Like, if Jeb Bush was elected president, or even Marco Rubio, you know, I wouldn’t have liked that, but I could have foreseen what was going to happen, and what that was going to look like.
What’s more, what Rhodes says about watching his work being undone is exactly and precisely what conservatives felt during the Obama era. Hey Ben, I feel your pain—actually, I felt your pain, and someday I may feel it again at the next election, depending on how it goes. I’m sure that people who actually worked on these things—for example, many of the military members who fought to secure Iraq or those who helped them—felt even worse than I did when they watched Obama give them away. The message is that what’s done can be undone.
One difference, of course, is that Democrats thought they not only had this one in the bag and that the baton would be handed off safely and easily to relay runner Hillary, but they thought they had established supreme dominance in the presidential electoral race and would never again be defeated by the upstart GOP, and that the least likely person in the world to accomplish that defeat would be Donald Trump. So their shock was doubled, tripled, quadrupled by their arrogance.
There are parts of the interview where Rhodes and Power seem to me to be sincerely self-deluded (as opposed to just spinning, which they’re also fully capable of) in their perception of what happened during the Obama administration and what has happened during Trump’s tenure so far in the international arena:
Well, I think that there’s something very, very different about President Obama investing in alliances, building a hyper-charged different kind of relationship with China and with India, and then drawing on that political capital to get them to do more in the international system, than holding our allies in contempt, ripping up international treaties, showing our word means nothing, and then demanding that people do what we say.
Or maybe the difference that when Obama “held our allies in contempt, ripped up international treaties, and showed our word meant nothing,” he didn’t “demand that people do what we say.” In fact, the “holding our allies in contempt and ripping up treaties” part was so commonplace for Obama that it received a name pretty early on in his presidency: the Obama doctrine.
And by the way, I’m curious: which allies does Trump hold in contempt? And which treaties has he ripped up?
See this. And the Paris climate agreement, which he did pull out of, was no treaty. Trump hasn’t even pulled out of the Iran deal yet, which also isn’t a treaty, and which was entered into by Obama without a majority in Congress approving.
The new blog design is actually being worked on
Remember, many months ago, I mentioned I was trying to redesign the blog? At the same time, the person who had been helping me with that sort of thing for many years said he couldn’t do it any more. I tried hiring someone (or some group), but I either never heard back from people (maybe I was too small a job?), or what they offered for the money wasn’t all that much help. I still may have to fall back on that, but I’ve been trying to do it on my own.
That’s pretty funny, if you know how non-tech-savvy I ordinarily am. That said, because I’ve been blogging all these years I’ve been forced to learn far more than I knew before about the tech side of the internet and things like code. That doesn’t mean I know all that much, though, and when I look at some pages that are supposedly for beginners but don’t really begin at the beginning, my eyes start glazing over.
To top it all off, when you change what WordPress calls “themes,” although you can try out a new theme with a handy device they have that fits your existing blog to it, all changes you make are temporary unless you go live with it. I’ve spent many a less-than-ecstatic hour—many—learning how to use the system, trying out theme after theme, and almost all my work gets lost each time except for some code that I’ve saved elsewhere, such as the code for the Paypal button. It’s frustrating and exceptionally time-consuming, although educational.
There’s a way you can save your work, but only if you’re modifying a theme that you’ve already taken live on the blog. I don’t want to do that, because it’s so painfully slow for me, and the blog would lose some functionality in the meantime.
But I’m getting close, really really close. I’ve learned a lot. I believe I’ve chosen a theme that preserves much of the clean simple look and many of the functions of this theme, plus a few added ones. I’m also planning, as I said a while back, to de-emphasize the “neocon” part of the blog and have a slightly different name, although it will be recognizable as me. But the old URL will still direct people here, plus a new URL.
The point of all of this is to make it easier to view the blog on mobile devices and to (hopefully!) modernize it in such a way that it won’t be subject to glitches every time they update WordPress or for random reasons. The theme I have now is very antiquated and not “supported” anymore, as the saying goes.
So let me know once again if there’s any feature the blog doesn’t have that you’ve been hungering for. I asked that once before but it was a while ago. I don’t make any promises about whether I can or will implement the particular thing you ask, but I’ll take it all under consideration.
When I say I’m getting close, that doesn’t mean “tomorrow.” It doesn’t even mean “this week,” most likely. But in a couple of weeks I think it will happen.
Trump must have gotten the answers through an earpiece
I’m sure that’s the explanation for this:
President Trump’s physician said Tuesday that the president received a perfect score on a cognitive test designed to screen for neurological impairment, which the military doctor said was evidence that Mr. Trump does not suffer from mental issues that prevent him from functioning in office.
“There’s no indication whatsoever that he has any cognitive issues,” Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, a rear admiral in the Navy and the White House physician, told reporters on Tuesday. “I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues whatsoever with his thought processes.”
Dr. Jackson said that a cognitive test was not indicated for Mr. Trump when the president underwent his annual physical on Friday, but that he conducted one anyway because the president requested it after questions from critics about his mental abilities. He said Mr. Trump received a score of 30 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a well-known test used by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and other hospitals.
The president’s doctor said Mr. Trump’s overall health was “excellent,”…
Or maybe Trump sent in a double to take the test. Or someone sent him the questions in advice?
There must be some explanation. There must.