During a lapdog interview with Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham doubled down on her recent affirmation that Never Trump Republicans are indeed “human scum” because “my job … is to support the president.”
You may recall that Donald Trump tweeted a few weeks ago, “The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!”
The next day, Grisham agreed 100% with that smear, even though both she and Trump work for all Americans, not just those who support him. Grisham said on Fox & Friends that “they deserve strong language like that.”
Today, Fox News host Howard Kurtz delicately approached the subject without challenging such anti-American rhetoric. His question was little more than an opening for her to reiterate the attack:
KURTZ: The president is known to be blunt in his language. He took some flak from the press, not unusual, when he recently referred to Never Trumpers as “human scum.” And you took some heat for defending that. Any second thoughts?
GRISHAM: I did, I did. No, I don’t have any second thoughts. It’s funny to me that I would get criticized for doing my job, which is to support the president. I speak for the president and I’m always going to support the things that he says. So I’m not sure why I got criticized for it. But my own personal beliefs is yes, I don’t think people should be working within our government that are actively trying to work against the president who’s done so much for this country.
Kurtz put up no challenge.
Watch Grisham put Trump (and her self-interest) over the country below, from the November 10, 2019 MediaBuzz.
The discovery literally floored me. In almost 50 years working as a highly reputed a translator, the need to verify any Latin term had never crossed my mind. We simply assumed that Latin was the same all over the world. Only a specialist in international law would be likely to know that that ain’t necessarily so.
But, then, my field of specialisation was building and civil engineering, not international criminal law.
I have heard that Dems are dumping it for “extortion” and “bribery” so maybe the Europeans will understand it better now. :)
I teach English in Italy and my advanced class was discussing this business of “quid pro quo”; our resident Latinist (a retired rubbish collector) protested that it does NOT mean “this for that”.
A quick google search brought up a Wikipedia page on how this term evolved since it was first used in a medical text during the 1600s. The original meaning was “substitution for” (as in one tablespoon of flour has the same thickening effect as half a teaspoon of corn starch or one egg).
In English, the translation “this for that” (a transaction or exchange) was first used during the late 1600s and it has become the accepted meaning in English today. The English-speaking world even has a large branch of jurisprudence to limit abuses of power like price-gouging, extorsion, blackmail, protection rackets, and the like. These violations of fairness are indeed crimes in English.
That little detail is why so many Europeans are somewhat mystified by what’s happening in the USA. In French, Italian and Spanish, for example, the term (sometimes spelled “qui pro quo”) is still used to mean “substitution for”.
The correct translation of “quid pro quo” in English is “do ut des”.