Tyler O’Neil finds amusing the Establishment Media’s efforts at provoking Trump into putting a label on what Barack Obama and his minions did.

During President Donald Trump’s White House press conference on Monday, a reporter asked the president what specific crime he was accusing former President Barack Obama of committing. Trump had tweeted accusations against Obama regarding the unfolding scandal of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation dubbed “Obamagate.” When Trump did not name a specific crime, many left-leaning politicos and journalists thought they had their story.

“Trump won’t name crime he’s accusing Obama of committing,” ran The Hill‘s headline. “‘You know what the crime is’: Trump stumped on ‘Obamagate’ details,” The Guardian reported. …

It is true that Trump did not name a specific crime when pressed. “Obamagate, it’s been going on for a long time,” he replied. He went on to reference “all of this information that’s being released, and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning.”

“Some terrible things happened and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again,” the president explained.

So why didn’t Trump name the specific crime? Why didn’t he just summarize the accusations against Obama and his administration? Why didn’t he say something like “the collusion caper” or “the spying on my campaign”?

The president didn’t dodge the question. He merely acted as though the crime was so obvious that reporters were shirking their responsibility to report the news if they were not aware of it.

On this, Trump has a very good point.

RTWT

We know the answer, of course, and as the scandal evolves and the wheels of justice turn, everyone will know the correct word.

Lempertz KG
May 16, 2020, 11:00 AM CET
Berlin, Germany

Est: €30,000 – €40,000
€15,000 0 bids

Description
Vessel comprised of two parts: The upper section a broad cuppa with a beaded rim and two mascarons on either side, the lower section a flaring twist-fluted base. The shaft with a beaded border beneath the disc-shaped node above a laurel leaf frieze. Frank C. Möller discovered a very similar basin around 15 years ago, the production of which could be assigned to the studio of Christian Daniel Rauch. Rauch’s account book mentions a certain Francesco Menghi who was charged with carving the piece on 15th March 1824 after a design by Karl Friedrich Schinkel. The piece consists of two parts, namely the broad bowl with its beaded rim and the twisted grapevine handles as well as the fluted base. The basin was presented at the Academy exhibition in 1826, where Prince Wilhelm purchased it and had it carried to the crown prince in December 1826. It remained in the possession of his descendants until the auction of the Welf estate in 2005. Another very similar basin was identified by Frank Möller in the inventory of the New Pavilion. It was produced a year earlier for King Friedrich Wilhelm III. A third smaller basin was made for Rauch’s daughter, Agnes von Rauch. All these vases are mentioned in Rauch’s second account book and all are identified. It is assumed that there was also a first account book, which has been lost, so that we have no information about possible further royal orders based on Schinkel’s designs. Like the three abovementioned pieces, this basin also diverges from the well-known prototypes of the Warwick, Medici, and Borghese vases. Versions of these famous designs in various materials had decorated the gardens and interiors of the European aristocracy since the late 17th century. In contrast to these models, the present work is designed to evoke an air of antiquity without being a direct copy. Its form departs entirely from classical models, and its bold design with a broad rim is entirely unique. The marble is also carved exceedingly thinly, with some parts measuring only 3mm in thickness. The two masks in the lower section of the vase are the only direct historical quotations in the design. They are a reference to the calyx krater-form vessel known as the Borghese vase, which features similar heads. Frank C. Möller has suggested that the heads represent the two guard figures Gog and Magog from the London guildhall. He assigns the basin to Schinkel’s early period, dating it to around 1810, and does not rule out that it was sent as part of the Italian delivery containing the sarcophagus of Queen Luise. The history of the sarcophagus’ delivery was an adventurous one, as the ship in which Rauch personally transported the finished object was captured. An English boat was able to regain the cargo and it finally arrived, damaged by salt water, in Charlottenburg in the spring of 1815. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven indefinitely that the basin was included in this particular order. All that is known for certain is that it originates from English aristocratic ownership. A cousin of Queen Luise, Queen Charlotte – née Duchess Sophie Charlotte von Mecklenburg – became Queen of England in 1761 and who may have ordered or received this bowl as a gift. She lived temporarily in Kew Place, where there is an enchanting garden with the most beautiful flowerpots. The basin presented here shows signs of use, which could indicate that it was used there. Another possible former owner could be William George Spencer Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire (1790 – 1858), who was also a great lover of gardening and had many such vases and tazze in his possession.

Dimensions
H 41.5 [15.34″], D 69 cm.[27″]

Artist or Maker
Northern Italy, circa / after 1810, design tentatively attributed to Karl-Friedrich Schinkel.

Medium
Thinly worked white Carrara marble.

Condition Report
Patinated and partially filled older crack (possibly caused during production) to the upper edge, circa 11 cm.

Literature
Cf. a design for a stembowl by Karl Friedrich Schinkel with a similarly broad cuppa (so-called Beuth-Dish) in cat.: Karl Friedrich Schinkel. Geschichte und Poesie, Berlin-Munich 2012, cat. 173, illus. 3.

Provenance
Provenance English aristocratic ownership.

—————————————-

A lovely object, but terribly pricey for a Garden Urn.

An unidentified Tumblr image that showed up on Facebook today of a rather alarming structure presumably built in defiance of any local building codes somewhere in South America or India. Despite all that, I think it does possess a certain charisma. It looks old and reminds the viewer of some of the overhanging Medieval buildings that survive in a few ancient towns in Europe. the air conditioner sticking out provides just the perfect touch of insouciance.

HT: Chilton Williamson.

HT: Vanderleun.

The Amalienburg is an elaborate hunting lodge on the grounds of the Nymphenburg Palace Park, Munich, in southern Germany, designed by François de Cuvilliés in Rococo style and constructed between 1734 and 1739 for Elector Karl Albrecht and later Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII and his wife, Maria Amalia of Austria.

The interior was designed by Johann Baptist Zimmermann and Joachim Dietrich (1690–1753) in the Bavarian national colors of silver and blue.

I enjoy Herzog’s raps.

Revealed this week about RussiaGate:

Everything the MSM told you was a lie

Everything Congressional Democrats told you was a lie

Everything the "Intelligence Community" told you was a lie

Everything we told you about the Russia Hoax was the Truth

Nobody on the left cares

— Carpe Donktum (@CarpeDonktum) May 9, 2020

Facebook makes sure that the same rules against violating liberal taboos are evenhandedly applied to people on the left, right, or center. Western Journal:

A powerful player on Facebook’s new content oversight board infamously mocked Barron Trump during last year’s impeachment hearings, sowing doubt in the social media platform’s promises of unbiased moderation.

The selection of Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School, was announced Wednesday by Facebook, according to CNBC.

Karlan will sit alongside 19 other experts and professionals on a board created by the social media giant to help police content.

“It is our ambition and goal that Facebook not decide elections, not be a force for one point of view over another, but the same rules will apply to people of left, right and center,” Michael McConnell, one of the board’s co-chairs, told reporters, according to CNBC.

Quentin Tarantino makes prominent use of a blue Karmann Ghia in two movies.

My college best friend had a white Karmann Ghia that he called “Leopold.” Ghias were, I suppose, slightly cooler than the ordinary VW bug that most of us owned back when we were young, but most of us thought they were funny looking and, most importantly, no faster than any ordinary beetle.

I had been watching “Once Upon a time… in Hollywood” (2019) on cable, and I remembered that Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) had been driving the same bloody blue Karmann Ghia in Mexico on her way to the final showdown in “Kill Bill: Vol. 2” (2004). So, I asked myself: Why in hell does Quentin Tarantino think that Ghias are cool, and what is it with that blue color?

I decided to search the Internet, and I found the answer: his dad owned one and he fixated on blue Ghias as a child! My father had a copper-colored 1960 Chevrolet Bel-Air, but I only thought it was cool back then. I wouldn’t take a free one today.

The cars in Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood” come close to stealing the show. Given that the film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt — both grizzled and a bit beaten up but all the more handsome for it — that’s saying a lot. …

there’s the blue, beaten-up 1964 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia, which belongs to Dalton’s stunt double, Cliff Booth (Pitt).

Oh, that Karmann Ghia. It’s lovely. I read that to help it perform in the movie as Tarantino wanted it to, he had its VW engine replaced with a pumped-up Subaru engine. The result, strange to say, is exactly what Tarantino’s films are like: cult cars souped up with new engines.

They’re exercises, in other words, in having it both ways: nostalgic and up-with-the-times; viscerally violent and glibly cartoonish; knowing and innocent. Tarantino’s casting of the Karmann Ghia expresses this duality in more ways than one.

I should stress at this point that I am in no way a “car guy.” I own a Honda CRV, and I can never remember where they’ve hidden the lever that opens the hood. But I do love beautiful cars, and whenever I see a Karmann Ghia, whether in a film or in real life, my heart breaks into a canter.

Yes, Porsches are gorgeous. Citroens are cool. And the great Italian sports cars are obviously unsurpassable. But Karmann Ghias — an unlikely combination of German (Volkswagen) mechanicals and Italian design — are simply the most beautiful cars ever built.

I know, I know, beauty is subjective. (Although it’s not so hard to find agreement on the proposition that Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie are good-looking.) But that’s precisely the point: A Karmann Ghia’s attractiveness is not absolute in any Platonic, archetypal way, like a Porsche or a Ferrari. Karmann Ghias are real. They’re invitations to fandom. They’re approachable. They’re affordable. And their shape is — to a degree that’s almost sublime — just right.

So yes, if I were Quentin Tarantino, setting my film in 1969, with his moviemaking budget, I, too, would be looking for just about any excuse to film a scene with a Karmann Ghia. I might even build my whole movie around it.

There was a moment when I thought that’s exactly what he had done. In one of the film’s indelible sequences, Pitt bids farewell to DiCaprio, hops into his Karmann Ghia, and drives home. Suddenly, it’s as if he were in a different movie, playing a bank robber with the cops in hot pursuit.

He’s not. They’re not. The whole sequence feels gloriously pointless, and — in classic Tarantino style — quite a few seconds longer than it needs to be. But the pointlessness is exactly what makes it so wonderful.

You could argue that the scene helps “develop” Booth’s character. You would dutifully point out that when acting as Dalton’s chauffeur, buddy and life coach, Booth drives his Coupe de Ville sedately, whereas when he is in his own car — the Karmann Ghia — he expresses his true calling as a stunt double: He appears to become a reckless lunatic, but he is actually very much in control. Both sides of his character get to shine in the film’s denouement.

But honestly, who cares about that? The real reason — the deeper reason — for the extended Karmann Ghia scene is the same as the reason Tarantino made homages to hard-boiled crime novels (“Pulp Fiction”) and to blaxploitation films (“Jackie Brown”); a revenge fantasy about Nazis (“Inglourious Basterds”); and a vampire Western (“From Dusk Till Dawn”). It’s the same as the reason he chose to cast the likes of John Travolta, Pam Grier and Christopher Walken in leading roles. It’s because he is a fan.

Tarantino’s main talent is and always has been the exuberant expression of fandom. He is a sort of hyperactive curator of personal pop obsessions. He’s just like you and me in this sense, only more so.

He tells stories, yes. But original plotting is not where his energies go. His real talent is to bring the irrational wildness of fandom to stories and subjects that in other hands feel exhausted, cliched, or just dated.

Tarantino’s fandom is so uninhibited, it’s infectious. Spotting the references to his various obsessions is part of what makes his films so fun. But he is generous on this score: If you get his allusions, great. If you don’t, he’ll make sure you have a good time anyway. …

Tarantino is happy for you to know that his father owned a blue Karmann Ghia. But the mental connection he would probably prefer you didn’t make when you see “Once Upon a Time” is between the Karmann Ghia and a trauma experienced 15 years ago by Uma Thurman — a trauma for which Tarantino last year publicly acknowledged responsibility.

In the final stages of shooting “Kill Bill: Volume 2,” Tarantino had asked Thurman, the film’s lead, to drive a blue Karmann Ghia down a sandy road at a speed with which she was uncomfortable. She had been told the car was not operating correctly after its manual transmission was changed to automatic. She asked Tarantino to get a stunt double to do it instead.

Tarantino insisted she drive, and the upshot was awful. The Karmann Ghia, with Thurman at the wheel, plowed into a tree. Thurman, who is convinced she could have been killed, has since described the incident as “negligent to the point of criminality.” She forgave Tarantino (he describes the incident as the biggest regret of his life). But Thurman maintained that the alleged attempt by Harvey Weinstein, Lawrence Bender, and E. Bennett Walsh to cover it up was “unforgivable.”

RTWT

And, how do you like this? Quentin couldn’t actually put up with a true Ghia’s anemic power, and had the original VW engine replaced with a modern Subaru boxer engine that puts out at least four times the power of the stock German 1500 air cooled flat-four.