#perry eberhart

[iphigeniarising]

[o-uncle-newt]

I guess the only person who can really be trusted to describe the greatness of Agatha Christie is Dorothy L Sayers...?

A while back, the always-sharp @thesarahshay sent me an ask that caught me up on something that I'd carelessly written in some tags- I said that Agatha Christie was good at writing romance into her detective fiction, without really elaborating. I then spent multiple paragraphs attempting to elaborate, I'm not sure with how much success. Essentially, and you can click above to see for yourself, my thesis was that while Sayers was a much better literary stylist (and certainly better at writing romance) than Christie, when writing a detective novel, her seams show; Christie had a natural talent for knowing exactly what belongs in a detective story and creating and fitting all the right pieces together that create a seamless detective story, including motivations drawn by romance (though I think the actual romances are among the weaker elements- still MUCH better than those written by most of her peers, for the record).

I'd had trouble putting into words what I wanted to say (there was a convoluted metaphor about Barbies and Lego in there), and I'm not sure I was too convincing; but turns out that the person who said what I wanted to say the best was, in fact the great DLS herself.

There's a fabulous book that I 100% recommend called Taking Detective Stories Seriously, which is a compilation of about two years' worth of detective story reviews that Sayers wrote. I hadn't heard of most of the authors, and even when I had heard of the authors I'd rarely read the books, but it didn't matter, frankly. She's just such a great writer, so thoughtful and incisive and passionate about both the genre and good craftsmanship (not to mention good English), that everything she has to say including on novels that haven't been in print since the 30s is worth reading. She has generally great taste, though she has a much higher opinion of Margery Allingham than I do and doesn't like Ellery Queen's The Siamese Twin Mystery as much as I'd thought she might (though the fact that a character in it insulted Unnatural Death may not have helped lol); but she also likes, to pick two very different writers who I too enjoy, HC Bailey and Mignon G Eberhart, and so she clearly has a good eye. (It's also entertaining to see her slowly force herself to admit that she likes Perry Mason...)

BUT ANYWAY.

She has three reviews of Agatha Christie books in the volume: Murder on the Orient Express, Why Didn't They Ask Evans, and Three Act Tragedy. She reviews all of them very positively, but it's her review of Three Act Tragedy (in my opinion, funnily enough, the weakest of the three) that she really gets to the core of Christie's genius. And it's actually fitting that it's for a book of hers that's on the more meh end of the scale- because it just shows how even meh Christie has an element of genius that other authors have to work hard for even in their best works.

She says:

Some time ago this column contained the statement that Hercule Poirot was "one of the few real detectives." It was a well-sounding phrase, and I have no quarrel with it, except that I am not quite clear what it meant. What I meant to write and what I thought I had written and what I now propose to write clearly with no mistake about it was and is this: Hercule Poirot is one of the few detectives with real charm. Plenty of authors assure us that their detectives are charming, but that is quite another thing. I don't know that Mrs Christie has ever said a word about the matter. She merely puts Poirot there, with all his little oddities and weaknesses, and there he is- a really charming person. And it is true, too, that he is "real," in the sense that we never stop to enquire whether his words and actions are suited to his character; they are his character, and we accept them as we accept the words and actions of any living person because they are a part of himself. Le style c'est l'homme. Indeed, when Mrs Christie is writing at the top of her form, as she is in Three Act Tragedy, all her characters have this reality. She does not postulate a character- retired actor, West End mannequin, family retainer- and put into its mouth sentiments appropriate to its station in life. She shows us character and behavior all of a piece. However surprising or enigmatic the behavior, we believe that everything took place just as she says it did, because we believe in the reality of the people. Poirot is charming, not because anybody says so, but because is is, and all her other people exist for us in the same objective manner. This is the great gift that distinguishes the novelist from the manufacturer of plots. Mrs Christie has given us an excellent plot, a clever mystery, and an exciting story, but her chief strength lies in this power to compel belief in these characters. [emphasis mine]

Sayers then proceeds to compare another author (or rather authors, the husband and wife pair GDH and M Cole) to Christie in this regard, moving on to another review. But in these three paragraphs she has, I think, said it better than anyone- that Christie's skill is in her naturalness, and how that naturalness compels us to believe in and immerse ourselves in her world. She is effortless and seamless.

To be clear, Sayers praises a lot of people in this book, and a lot of people's writing; but mostly she is praising their skill and ability to create what they have created. Here, she isn't quite praising that- she's praising the fact that the final product is so good that you can't even see the craftsmanship behind it, and that's, I think, what separates Christie from her peers. It's a power, and not one that can be broken down by a critic. She just has it.

I've said before that I don't think Sayers had this as a mystery writer, and I think she'd probably be the first to agree with that assessment; she certainly had a seemingly effortless skill as a prose writer (as these reviews show), but as a novelist she took construction seriously and wanted us to know this. That said, another person who I don't think has this, who I mention because he's someone who a lot of people compare Christie to (often negatively), is John Dickson Carr.

I've seen plenty of people say that Carr is a more sophisticated version of Christie, not just in mystery construction but in writing style, and equally prolific, creative, and versatile. I don't agree with this on most counts, but I think, honestly, that Carr is fine- but you can see the seams easily. He might have been prolific but his formulae are visible and his writing required intentionality on his part. By which I mean- Carr when he's trying to be funny is generally hilarious. Carr when he's trying to be scary is generally spine-tingling. But Carr when he's just trying to get to the next good bit is dull and mechanical. He needs to be paying attention and making an effort in order to be good, and we notice him doing this. Christie never has this problem; even when the actual stuff she's writing isn't high quality, she's never dull. Everything feels purposeful and organic, somehow.

Obviously, all of this is fundamentally subjective, and if there's one redeeming element it's that an incredibly smart lady agrees with me (by my interpretation, at least) and says it extremely well. But I'll be holding on to this one, if nothing else.

[batboyblog]

If you're looking for some great must read mlm books, this is the list for you!

Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli

Social Skills by Sara Alva

Silent by Sara Alva

One Man Guy by Michael Barakiva

Hold My Hand by Michael Barakiva

Wonders of the Invisible World by Christopher Barzak

Alan Cole Is Not a Coward by Eric Bell

Alan Cole Doesn’t Dance by Eric Bell

Queeroes by Steven Bereznai

The Darkest Part of the Forest by Holly Black

Ziggy, Stardust and Me by James Brandon

In Other Lands by Sarah Rees Brennan

Felix Yz by Lisa Bunker

Exit Plans for Teenage Freaks by Nathan Burgoine

Last Bus to Everland by Sophie Cameron

The House of Impossible Beauties by Joseph Cassara

Peter Darling by Austin Chant

Gives Light by Rose Christo

Stranger Than Fanfiction by Chris Colfer

Carry the Ocean by Heidi Cullinan

The Love Interest by Cale Dietrich

There Goes Sunday School by Alexander C. Eberhart

Lock & West by Alexander C. Eberhart

The Screwed Up Life of Charlie the Second by Drew Ferguson

Love & Other Curses by Michael Thomas Ford

Only Mostly Devastated by Sophie Gonzales

Tales from Foster High by John Goode

How Not to Ask a Boy to Prom by S.J. Goslee

Whatever.: or how junior year became totally f$@ked by S.J. Goslee

Will Grayson, Will Grayson by John Green & David Levithan

Half Bad by Sally Green

Half Wild by Sally Green

Half Lost by Sally Green

Heartbreak Boys by Simon James Green

Geography Club by Brent Hartinger

We Contain Multitudes by Sarah Henstra

Middle School’s a Drag, You Better Werk by Greg Howard

Social Intercourse by Greg Howard

Totally Joe by James Howe

After School Activities by Dirk Hunter

At the Edge of the Universe by Shaun David Hutchinson

The Past and Other Things That Should Stay Buried by Shaun David Hutchinson

We Are the Ants by Shaun David Hutchinson

The Five Stages of Andrew Brawley by Shaun David Hutchinson

A Complicated Love Story Set in Space by Shaun David Hutchinson

The Boy Who Couldn’t Fly Straight by Jeff Jacobson

Haffling by Caleb James

The Red Sheet by Mia Kerick

The Lightning-Struck Heart by T.J. Klune

A Destiny of Dragons by T.J. Klune

The Consumption of Magic by T.J. Klune

A Wish Upon the Stars by T.J. Klune

The Extraordinaries by T.J. Klune

Flash Fire by T.J. Klune

Openly Straight by Bill Konigsberg

The Bridge by Bill Konigsberg

Autoboyography by Christina Lauren

The Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzi Lee

Two Boys Kissing by David Levithan

Every Day by David Levithan

Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan

How to Repair a Mechanical Heart by J.C. Lillis

When Ryan Came Back by Devon McCormack

Red, White & Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston

Vivaldi in the Dark by Matthew J. Metzger

Life as a Teenage Vampire by Amanda Meuwissen

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller

The Art of Starving by Sam J. Miller

Hero by Perry Moore

Marco Impossible by Hannah Moskowitz

Like a Love Story by Abdi Nazemian

I’ll Give You the Sun by Jandy Nelson

More Than This by Patrick Ness

Earth to Charlie by Justin Olson

Play Me, I’m Yours by Madison Parker

Here’s to You, Zeb Pike by Johanna Parkhurst

Junior Hero Blues by J.K. Pendragon

When Everything Feels Like the Movies by Raziel Reid

Jack of Hearts by Lev A.C. Rosen

Camp by Lev A.C. Rosen

Carry On by Rainbow Rowell

Wayward Son by Rainbow Rowell

My Awesome/Awful Popularity Plan by Seth Rudetsky

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe by Benjamin Alire Sáenz

Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez

Rainbow High by Alex Sanchez

Rainbow Road by Alex Sanchez

So Hard to Say by Alex Sanchez

The Darkness Outside Us by Eliot Schrefer

All Kinds of Other by James Sie

They Both Die at the End by Adam Silvera

History Is All You Left Me by Adam Silvera

More Happy Than Not by Adam Silvera

Grasshopper Jungle by Andrew Smith

Freak Show by James St. James

Ray of Sunlight by Brynn Stein

Imaginary by Jamie Sullivan

(In)visible by Anyta Sunday

The Dangerous Art of Blending In by Angelo Surmelis

366 Days by Kiyoshi Tanaka

Cemetery Boys by Aiden Thomas

Wild and Crooked by Leah Thomas

Because You’ll Never Meet Me by Leah Thomas

Fan Art by Sarah Tregay

Suicide Watch by Kelley York

Thanks to my friend @lostintrace for the art, each are characters from books on this list. If you want help picking out a book, hit my inbox!

Header: Red, White & Royal Blue (L) and Carry On (R)

Red: Jack of Hearts (and other parts)

Orange: Alan Cole Is Not a Coward

Yellow: Heartbreak Boys

Green: The Lightning-Struck Heart

Blue: Boy Meets Boy

Purple: Cemetery Boys

[cityoflondon-rp-blog]

FOLLOW LIST UPDATE:

Zoé Rouse

Thomas Serpell

Andrew Eberhart

Amir Dawar 

Revati Sharma

Genevieve Perry

Joanna Jones

Daniella Mason

Luci Jackson

[plusorminuscongress]

New story in Politics from Time: ���This Is a Distraction.’ Republicans Worry Trump’s Racist Comments Will Hurt Him in 2020

President Donald Trump has unleashed a series of racist attacks in recent weeks, indicating that white grievance could be a key focus of his 2020 campaign strategy. But some Republicans worry that will cost him votes and take focus away from the economy and other issues he should be running on.

“Anything that detracts from a truly remarkable economic renaissance undermines his re-election,” says Republican pollster Frank Luntz. “This is a distraction.”

Over the weekend, Trump wrote a series of racist tweets about Rep. Elijah Cummings and his majority-black Baltimore district, calling it a “rat and rodent infested mess.” Just two weeks earlier, he had unleashed a series of racist criticisms against freshmen Representatives Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, all women of color, saying they should “go back” to where they came from, despite the fact that three of the congresswomen were born in the U.S. and all four are American citizens.

Trump denies that any of these comments were racially motivated. “I’m the least racist person there is anywhere in the world,” he told reporters on July 30.

Still, the rhetoric makes Republican donors cringe. “Trump had some great laps around the track last week: [former special counsel Robert] Mueller’s testimony, wall funding and the budget,” Dan Eberhart, a prominent GOP donor, told TIME in a text. “Rather than have those stories linger, he is effectively driving the car the opposite direction around the race track with his anti-Baltimore feud. As a Republican, all you can do is hope it doesn’t end in a wreck.”

Trump seems to be aiming to animate the white working-class voters in his base. In an interview with TIME in June, when asked whether he would try to reach out to swing voters, Trump said, “I think my base is so strong, I’m not sure that I have to do that.”

Read More: ‘My Whole Life Is a Bet.’ Inside President Trump’s Gamble on an Untested Re-Election Strategy

But polling shows that may not be true. A study funded by Cornell University’s Center for the Study of Inequality and published in the Washington Post found that “the backlash from the president’s racist rhetoric is likely to offset any electoral benefit from Trump’s base.” A recent USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll cited by the study found that a majority of Americans thought Trump’s tweets targeting the four freshmen congresswomen were “un-American”; three-fourths of women polled said the tweets were offensive, and independents, by more than a 2-1 margin, said the tweets were “un-American.”

“Racist rhetoric could backfire not only by motivating Trump’s opponents to turn out to vote, but also by turning away independents,” the Cornell study says.

In the 2018 midterms, Democrats were able to win the House of Representatives largely by focusing on health care and other economic policy issues, a blueprint that the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are wrestling with whether to follow. The three states that gave Trump his narrow margin of victory in 2016— Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—all elected Democratic candidates in the midterms. And there were some indications that white women, a key constituency for Trump, may be beginning to abandon him. About 53% of white women voters cast ballots for Trump in 2016, while 49% of those same voters cast ballots for Republican candidates in the midterms, according to CNN exit polls.

In a series of more than three dozen interviews, the Associated Press found that suburban women — a crucial voting bloc for the next election — often “expressed dismay — or worse — at Trump’s racially polarizing insults and what was often described as unpresidential treatment of people.”

Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, noted that in 2016 Trump successfully ignored the advice of the Republican National Committee’s 2012 autopsy report, which determined the party needed to reach out to more minorities to win elections in the future after Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama. Trump’s focus on racial issues isn’t new: he propounded the false conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t a real U.S. citizen, and launched his presidential campaign in 2015 by calling some undocumented Mexican immigrants “rapists.”

But Perry says Trump’s dog whistles about race are becoming even more overt. “I’m going to say no, let’s just be racist… because 30%-35% of the American electorate is racist,” Perry says, describing Trump’s strategy. “The other people in the Republican Party and in the conservative electorate are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, or in 2020, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. Maybe some would vote for Joe Biden, but they’re probably not going to vote for those two women or Pete Buttigieg, so then you think, they’re going to come on board with me anyway. So I might as well spend most of my time ginning up this 30-35% of my base.”

Trump campaign officials have said the economy would be the top issue for Trump’s campaign messaging. But in a June interview with TIME, Trump said he doesn’t think voters are giving him enough credit on the subject. “I think I’m getting credit,” he said, “but I’m not getting the full credit.”

Asked this week whether Trump’s feuds with the freshmen congresswomen and Cummings distract from the economy and other issues, Daniel Bucheli, deputy press secretary for the President’s re-election campaign, responded, “President Trump isn’t afraid to point out the real problems, and this is why he connects at a different level with all Americans. This is not campaign strategy, but an America First strategy to better all citizens lives, regardless of zip code—and has been since day one.”

-With additional reporting by Alana Abramson/Washington

By Tessa Berenson on July 30, 2019 at 01:23PM

[itsfinancethings]

October 17, 2019 at 08:35PM

As Donald Trump flew to Texas Thursday for a fundraiser and rally, the revelations about the President’s involvement in Ukraine escalated into a full-fledged crisis.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, undercut the President’s denial of a quid pro quo when he told reporters that Trump withheld military aid as leverage to push Ukraine to investigate Democrats’ activity during the 2016 election—and then reversed himself hours later. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said he contacted Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani at the president’s behest to talk about Ukraine—and then resigned. And European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House investigators that Trump had delegated power over U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine to Giuliani, and added that it was “wrong” to link political requests to actions on Ukraine.

It’s not yet clear how Trump’s mounting troubles will affect the impeachment proceedings in Congress. Even if the Democratic House votes to impeach the President, the Republican-controlled Senate must vote to convict him in order to remove him from office. But the events of the past 24 hours have turned up the pressure on an increasingly embattled Trump.

In the White House briefing room Thursday, Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Democratic Party actions during the 2016 election in exchange for releasing the flow of military aid. “The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney said, explaining why the aid to Ukraine was delayed. “Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

“Did he also mention to me in [the] past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely,” Mulvaney said, confirming that Trump had also brought up the debunked conspiracy that Ukrainian individuals were involved in the investigation into the Russian hacking of the DNC server in 2016. “No question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.”

After Trump’s senior-most aide announced publicly that political considerations influenced Trump’s foreign policy, Trump allies scrambled to do damage control. Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow told TIME Trump’s legal counsel “was not involved” in Mulvaney’s briefing, and a senior official in the Department of Justice also distanced DOJ from Mulvaney’s comments. “If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us,” the official wrote in a statement.

The reaction was swift. Within hours, Mulvaney had walked back his comments, repeatedly asserting that the White House decision to hold up nearly $400 million in military aid had nothing to do with an investigation into hacking the Democratic National Committee’s server and whether that server ended up in Ukraine. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election,” he said in a statement. “There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.” Mulvaney’s carefully-worded statement pointedly did not mention any other investigations into Democrats, including Trump’s fixation on Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that once employed former Vice President Biden’s son.

While Mulvaney said during the press briefing that the delay in military aid “had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” his subsequent statement did not mention Burisma or Biden at all. The omission was conspicuous in part because text messages made public by House investigators last week made it clear that Ukrainian officials believed that the White House visit they sought was dependent on their opening a probe into both the DNC server and Burisma. “Once we have a date we will call for a press briefing,” a Zelensky aide texted the U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. The briefing would announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations,” he wrote. Volker responded, “Sounds great!”

While Mulvaney’s comments exploded onto cable news chyrons, Trump’s hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, GOP donor Gordon Sondland, began speaking to House investigators. He told them it would have been “wrong” to withhold military aid in an effort to pressure Ukraine to take on a political investigation. “Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong,” Sondland said. “Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings.”

Jordan Tama, an associate professor at American University who specializes in foreign and national security policy decision-making, said the distinction lies in whether the White House used military aid to pressure a foreign country to act to advance U.S. interests, or whether it did so to advance the president’s political interests. “Ukrainian cooperation with the Trump administration’s investigation regarding what happened to the DNC server in 2016 is not a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine because the investigation is being conducted to advance the president’s political interests, not U.S. national interests,” he says. “It is appropriate to tie U.S. aid to a foreign government’s cooperation with the United States in areas such as counterterrorism or nuclear non-proliferation, but it’s not appropriate to tie U.S. aid to a foreign government’s cooperation with an investigation being carried out to assist the president’s reelection campaign.”

Sondland also confirmed the central role Giuliani has been playing in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. “It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the president’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said. “Our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.”

Trump’s outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry also amplified Giuliani’s rarified status as it relates to Trump and Ukraine. Perry, who resigned Wednesday evening, told the Wall Street Journal that Trump personally told him last spring to work with Giuliani to get the Ukrainians to “straighten up their act” on investigating 2016 before Trump would agree to meet the country’s new president.

“The fact that this was about corruption in Ukraine and had nothing to do with politics defies credulity,” says Brett Bruen, a former National Security Council official under President Obama. “The FBI isn’t in Kiev investigating the matter, instead [Trump] has his personal attorney out looking for dirt.”

This cascade of new revelations came as Senate Republicans publicly objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria in the face of a Turkish invasion and the slaughter of Kurdish fighters who were fighting alongside U.S. soldiers a few weeks ago. White House officials are concerned that Republican outrage over Trump’s Syria decision could weaken their support for the President in the impeachment proceedings.

So far, Trump has enjoyed strong support among Republican lawmakers, making it unlikely that they would vote to convict him in an impeachment trial. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is quietly gathering information on Trump and Ukraine, but so far, hasn’t decided to take an adversarial approach to Trump.

The pace of recent revelations could threaten that solid support in the Senate. “The idea that President Trump is right because he’s a Republican and I am a Republican will only hold so much water,” says Dan Eberhart, a GOP donor. “At some point Republicans have to reexamine the facts and consider it’s time to break the glass, and just change your mind.” Democrats are gambling that their investigations, and the steady drumbeat of revelations resulting from them, will tilt the scales of public opinion on Election Day 2020.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has started to walk through the nuts and bolts of a Senate trial with his caucus to “normalize” the process, according to a Senate leadership aid. McConnell used a PowerPoint presentation on Wednesday at the caucus lunch to help familiarize his fellow Republicans with the rules of impeachment, including a required starting time each afternoon and a ban on senators speaking during the trial. The same leadership aide says McConnell has suggested working out a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that would allow lawmakers to meet on legislation during the mornings, so they can focus on impeachment in the afternoons.

The impeachment process may still be in early stages, but the president finds himself in an increasingly precarious spot.

-With reporting by Alana Abramson, Vera Bergengruen, Philip Elliott and John Walcott/Washington

[viralnewstime]

As Donald Trump flew to Texas Thursday for a fundraiser and rally, the revelations about the President’s involvement in Ukraine escalated into a full-fledged crisis.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, undercut the President’s denial of a quid pro quo when he told reporters that Trump withheld military aid as leverage to push Ukraine to investigate Democrats’ activity during the 2016 election—and then reversed himself hours later. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said he contacted Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani at the president’s behest to talk about Ukraine—and then resigned. And European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House investigators that Trump had delegated power over U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine to Giuliani, and added that it was “wrong” to link political requests to actions on Ukraine.

It’s not yet clear how Trump’s mounting troubles will affect the impeachment proceedings in Congress. Even if the Democratic House votes to impeach the President, the Republican-controlled Senate must vote to convict him in order to remove him from office. But the events of the past 24 hours have turned up the pressure on an increasingly embattled Trump.

In the White House briefing room Thursday, Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Democratic Party actions during the 2016 election in exchange for releasing the flow of military aid. “The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney said, explaining why the aid to Ukraine was delayed. “Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

“Did he also mention to me in [the] past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely,” Mulvaney said, confirming that Trump had also brought up the debunked conspiracy that Ukrainian individuals were involved in the investigation into the Russian hacking of the DNC server in 2016. “No question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.”

After Trump’s senior-most aide announced publicly that political considerations influenced Trump’s foreign policy, Trump allies scrambled to do damage control. Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow told TIME Trump’s legal counsel “was not involved” in Mulvaney’s briefing, and a senior official in the Department of Justice also distanced DOJ from Mulvaney’s comments. “If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us,” the official wrote in a statement.

The reaction was swift. Within hours, Mulvaney had walked back his comments, repeatedly asserting that the White House decision to hold up nearly $400 million in military aid had nothing to do with an investigation into hacking the Democratic National Committee’s server and whether that server ended up in Ukraine. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election,” he said in a statement. “There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.” Mulvaney’s carefully-worded statement pointedly did not mention any other investigations into Democrats, including Trump’s fixation on Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that once employed former Vice President Biden’s son.

While Mulvaney said during the press briefing that the delay in military aid “had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” his subsequent statement did not mention Burisma or Biden at all. The omission was conspicuous in part because text messages made public by House investigators last week made it clear that Ukrainian officials believed that the White House visit they sought was dependent on their opening a probe into both the DNC server and Burisma. “Once we have a date we will call for a press briefing,” a Zelensky aide texted the U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. The briefing would announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations,” he wrote. Volker responded, “Sounds great!”

While Mulvaney’s comments exploded onto cable news chyrons, Trump’s hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, GOP donor Gordon Sondland, began speaking to House investigators. He told them it would have been “wrong” to withhold military aid in an effort to pressure Ukraine to take on a political investigation. “Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong,” Sondland said. “Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings.”

Jordan Tama, an associate professor at American University who specializes in foreign and national security policy decision-making, said the distinction lies in whether the White House used military aid to pressure a foreign country to act to advance U.S. interests, or whether it did so to advance the president’s political interests. “Ukrainian cooperation with the Trump administration’s investigation regarding what happened to the DNC server in 2016 is not a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine because the investigation is being conducted to advance the president’s political interests, not U.S. national interests,” he says. “It is appropriate to tie U.S. aid to a foreign government’s cooperation with the United States in areas such as counterterrorism or nuclear non-proliferation, but it’s not appropriate to tie U.S. aid to a foreign government’s cooperation with an investigation being carried out to assist the president’s reelection campaign.”

Sondland also confirmed the central role Giuliani has been playing in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. “It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the president’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said. “Our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.”

Trump’s outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry also amplified Giuliani’s rarified status as it relates to Trump and Ukraine. Perry, who resigned Wednesday evening, told the Wall Street Journal that Trump personally told him last spring to work with Giuliani to get the Ukrainians to “straighten up their act” on investigating 2016 before Trump would agree to meet the country’s new president.

“The fact that this was about corruption in Ukraine and had nothing to do with politics defies credulity,” says Brett Bruen, a former National Security Council official under President Obama. “The FBI isn’t in Kiev investigating the matter, instead [Trump] has his personal attorney out looking for dirt.”

This cascade of new revelations came as Senate Republicans publicly objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria in the face of a Turkish invasion and the slaughter of Kurdish fighters who were fighting alongside U.S. soldiers a few weeks ago. White House officials are concerned that Republican outrage over Trump’s Syria decision could weaken their support for the President in the impeachment proceedings.

So far, Trump has enjoyed strong support among Republican lawmakers, making it unlikely that they would vote to convict him in an impeachment trial. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is quietly gathering information on Trump and Ukraine, but so far, hasn’t decided to take an adversarial approach to Trump.

The pace of recent revelations could threaten that solid support in the Senate. “The idea that President Trump is right because he’s a Republican and I am a Republican will only hold so much water,” says Dan Eberhart, a GOP donor. “At some point Republicans have to reexamine the facts and consider it’s time to break the glass, and just change your mind.” Democrats are gambling that their investigations, and the steady drumbeat of revelations resulting from them, will tilt the scales of public opinion on Election Day 2020.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has started to walk through the nuts and bolts of a Senate trial with his caucus to “normalize” the process, according to a Senate leadership aid. McConnell used a PowerPoint presentation on Wednesday at the caucus lunch to help familiarize his fellow Republicans with the rules of impeachment, including a required starting time each afternoon and a ban on senators speaking during the trial. The same leadership aide says McConnell has suggested working out a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that would allow lawmakers to meet on legislation during the mornings, so they can focus on impeachment in the afternoons.

The impeachment process may still be in early stages, but the president finds himself in an increasingly precarious spot.

-With reporting by Alana Abramson, Vera Bergengruen, Philip Elliott and John Walcott/Washington

[hellofastestnewsfan]

As Donald Trump flew to Texas Thursday for a fundraiser and rally, the revelations about the President’s involvement in Ukraine escalated into a full-fledged crisis.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, undercut the President’s denial of a quid pro quo when he told reporters that Trump withheld military aid as leverage to push Ukraine to investigate Democrats’ activity during the 2016 election—and then reversed himself hours later. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said he contacted Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani at the president’s behest to talk about Ukraine—and then resigned. And European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told House investigators that Trump had delegated power over U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine to Giuliani, and added that it was “wrong” to link political requests to actions on Ukraine.

It’s not yet clear how Trump’s mounting troubles will affect the impeachment proceedings in Congress. Even if the Democratic House votes to impeach the President, the Republican-controlled Senate must vote to convict him in order to remove him from office. But the events of the past 24 hours have turned up the pressure on an increasingly embattled Trump.

In the White House briefing room Thursday, Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Democratic Party actions during the 2016 election in exchange for releasing the flow of military aid. “The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate,” Mulvaney said, explaining why the aid to Ukraine was delayed. “Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

“Did he also mention to me in [the] past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely,” Mulvaney said, confirming that Trump had also brought up the debunked conspiracy that Ukrainian individuals were involved in the investigation into the Russian hacking of the DNC server in 2016. “No question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.”

After Trump’s senior-most aide announced publicly that political considerations influenced Trump’s foreign policy, Trump allies scrambled to do damage control. Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow told TIME Trump’s legal counsel “was not involved” in Mulvaney’s briefing, and a senior official in the Department of Justice also distanced DOJ from Mulvaney’s comments. “If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us,” the official wrote in a statement.

The reaction was swift. Within hours, Mulvaney had walked back his comments, repeatedly asserting that the White House decision to hold up nearly $400 million in military aid had nothing to do with an investigation into hacking the Democratic National Committee’s server and whether that server ended up in Ukraine. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election,” he said in a statement. “There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.” Mulvaney’s carefully-worded statement pointedly did not mention any other investigations into Democrats, including Trump’s fixation on Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that once employed former Vice President Biden’s son.

While Mulvaney said during the press briefing that the delay in military aid “had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” his subsequent statement did not mention Burisma or Biden at all. The omission was conspicuous in part because text messages made public by House investigators last week made it clear that Ukrainian officials believed that the White House visit they sought was dependent on their opening a probe into both the DNC server and Burisma. “Once we have a date we will call for a press briefing,” a Zelensky aide texted the U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. The briefing would announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations,” he wrote. Volker responded, “Sounds great!”

While Mulvaney’s comments exploded onto cable news chyrons, Trump’s hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, GOP donor Gordon Sondland, began speaking to House investigators. He told them it would have been “wrong” to withhold military aid in an effort to pressure Ukraine to take on a political investigation. “Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong,” Sondland said. “Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings.”

Jordan Tama, an associate professor at American University who specializes in foreign and national security policy decision-making, said the distinction lies in whether the White House used military aid to pressure a foreign country to act to advance U.S. interests, or whether it did so to advance the president’s political interests. “Ukrainian cooperation with the Trump administration’s investigation regarding what happened to the DNC server in 2016 is not a legitimate reason to hold up military aid to Ukraine because the investigation is being conducted to advance the president’s political interests, not U.S. national interests,” he says. “It is appropriate to tie U.S. aid to a foreign government’s cooperation with the United States in areas such as counterterrorism or nuclear non-proliferation, but it’s not appropriate to tie U.S. aid to a foreign government’s cooperation with an investigation being carried out to assist the president’s reelection campaign.”

Sondland also confirmed the central role Giuliani has been playing in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. “It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the president’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said. “Our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.”

Trump’s outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry also amplified Giuliani’s rarified status as it relates to Trump and Ukraine. Perry, who resigned Wednesday evening, told the Wall Street Journal that Trump personally told him last spring to work with Giuliani to get the Ukrainians to “straighten up their act” on investigating 2016 before Trump would agree to meet the country’s new president.

“The fact that this was about corruption in Ukraine and had nothing to do with politics defies credulity,” says Brett Bruen, a former National Security Council official under President Obama. “The FBI isn’t in Kiev investigating the matter, instead [Trump] has his personal attorney out looking for dirt.”

This cascade of new revelations came as Senate Republicans publicly objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria in the face of a Turkish invasion and the slaughter of Kurdish fighters who were fighting alongside U.S. soldiers a few weeks ago. White House officials are concerned that Republican outrage over Trump’s Syria decision could weaken their support for the President in the impeachment proceedings.

So far, Trump has enjoyed strong support among Republican lawmakers, making it unlikely that they would vote to convict him in an impeachment trial. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is quietly gathering information on Trump and Ukraine, but so far, hasn’t decided to take an adversarial approach to Trump.

The pace of recent revelations could threaten that solid support in the Senate. “The idea that President Trump is right because he’s a Republican and I am a Republican will only hold so much water,” says Dan Eberhart, a GOP donor. “At some point Republicans have to reexamine the facts and consider it’s time to break the glass, and just change your mind.” Democrats are gambling that their investigations, and the steady drumbeat of revelations resulting from them, will tilt the scales of public opinion on Election Day 2020.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has started to walk through the nuts and bolts of a Senate trial with his caucus to “normalize” the process, according to a Senate leadership aid. McConnell used a PowerPoint presentation on Wednesday at the caucus lunch to help familiarize his fellow Republicans with the rules of impeachment, including a required starting time each afternoon and a ban on senators speaking during the trial. The same leadership aide says McConnell has suggested working out a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that would allow lawmakers to meet on legislation during the mornings, so they can focus on impeachment in the afternoons.

The impeachment process may still be in early stages, but the president finds himself in an increasingly precarious spot.

-With reporting by Alana Abramson, Vera Bergengruen, Philip Elliott and John Walcott/Washington

  from TIME https://ift.tt/2J0vfIG

[bountyofbeads]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/there-was-no-plan-b-trump-scrambles-to-find-chief-of-staff-after-top-candidate-turns-him-down/2018/12/10/9b6d0424-fc9c-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

OMG they’re down to Christie, Rick Perry and Santorum 😅😂🤣😅😂🤣

‘There was no Plan B’: Trump scrambles to find chief of staff after top candidate turns him down

By Philip Rucker, Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa/December 10, 2018 at 7:51 PM/Washington Post/POSTED December 10, 2018

President Trump had no Plan B.

After announcing the exit of his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and being turned down by his pick to replace him, Nick Ayers, Trump found himself Monday in an unexpected predicament — scrambling to recruit someone to help run the executive branch of the federal government and guide the administration through the political tumult and possible legal peril ahead.

In any White House, the chief of staff is arguably the most punishing position. But in this White House — a den of disorder ruled by an impulsive president — it has proved to be an especially thankless job. The two people to hold the job were left with their reputations diminished after failing to constrain the president, who often prefers to function as his own chief of staff.

Three members of Trump’s Cabinet who have been discussed inside the West Wing as possible chiefs of staff — Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer — each signaled Monday that they were not interested in the position.

Considerable buzz has centered on two other contenders. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) noted his interest in the job by issuing a statement saying that “serving as Chief of Staff would be an incredible honor.”

“It is not something I have been campaigning for,” Meadows told reporters Monday on Capitol Hill, adding that his phone “blew up” after the Ayers news broke. “The president has a good list of candidates. I’m honored to be one of those.”

And acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker, who traveled with Trump to Kansas City, Mo., last week , is seen by the president and his allies as a loyalist.

But Trump’s advisers and aides cautioned that there was not yet a front-runner.

Although aides said the president is committed to finding a replacement for Kelly before the Christmas holiday, they said he has been vacillating — casting about in all corners for potential picks and frustrated by news coverage depicting his White House as a place where talented people do not want to work.

In a flurry of private conversations with family members, friends and staffers, Trump has been crowdsourcing various names to solicit feedback, according to people who have spoken with him. In turn, some of those names have wound up in media reports as candidates for the job.

Among the people seen as contenders, in addition to Meadows and Whitaker, are David N. Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager and an outside adviser; White House counselor Kellyanne Conway; Chris Christie, a former New Jersey governor and former Trump transition chairman; Energy Secretary Rick Perry, a former Texas governor; Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania; and Wayne Berman, an executive at the investment firm Blackstone and a veteran Republican operative.

There are a few other people under serious consideration by Trump whose names have not been revealed in the media, according to people familiar with the president’s deliberations.

Kelly led the White House senior staff meeting Monday morning but acted as if nothing had happened, an attendee said.

As with other aspects of Trump’s presidency, the search process took on the feel of a season of “The Apprentice,” his former NBC reality show. Candidates for the job are unsure of the status of the president’s deliberations and are being kept largely in the dark from the White House. And they are mindful of not appearing to be pining for the job publicly.

Among some of Trump’s current and former advisers, the chief-of-staff search is something of a running joke.

“It’s a well-oiled machine,” quipped one Republican close to the White House who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly, a reference to the president’s claims that oft-documented chaos does not exist. “I don’t even know why they need a chief of staff. I guess they need somebody to pour the oil in once in a while, but that’s a part-time job, right?”

Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and oil executive, said the president’s “needs are unique.”

“Trump has to find someone strong enough to execute his ever-evolving plan, tolerate his abrasive, knee-jerk management style and do it in the face of a hostile media and a soon-to-be-Democratic House,” Eberhart said.

Publicly, Trump has sought to project an air of nothing-to-see-here calm.

“I am in the process of interviewing some really great people for the position of White House Chief of Staff,” the president said Monday on Twitter. “Fake News has been saying with certainty it was Nick Ayers, a spectacular person who will always be with our #MAGA agenda. I will be making a decision soon!”

In reality, however, Trump was left at the altar.

After months of discussions, Trump decided he wanted to poach Ayers, who is Vice President Pence’s chief of staff, as his own chief. Ayers had the enthusiastic support of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, both senior White House advisers. The president was not eager to entertain other options, and for much of last week Ayers acted as his de-facto chief of staff, according to people familiar with the dynamic.

Trump had tasked Ayers with leading a top-to-bottom review of the White House staff and Cabinet with the aim of readying the administration for the partisan and legal battles to come, including Democrats seizing the House majority, the hoped-for conclusion of the Russia investigation and the start of the 2020 reelection campaign, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

But Ayers was careful not to commit to the job, and over the weekend — just after Trump announced to reporters that Kelly would be leaving by the end of the year — Ayers turned it down because he would not agree to Trump’s request that he serve for two years, these people said.

Ayers, the father of young triplets, had long planned to move to his home state of Georgia at the end of this year, White House officials said.

Trump, who had been telling friends over the weekend that Ayers was going to take the job, was frustrated that he turned it down, aides said. But Trump also insisted to associates that he had an overflow of talented people eager to be his chief of staff.

Ayers faced considerable scrutiny because of his lucrative work as a private consultant, including for former Missouri governor Eric Greitens, and reported making tens of millions of dollars. But one official familiar with Ayers’s thinking said his finances were no factor in his decision and noted that he already has made public disclosures related to his job with Pence.

Kushner’s prominence in internal deliberations over the post has drawn scrutiny from his critics, who argue that the president’s son-in-law was pushing Ayers as a means of prompting Kelly to exit. Kushner played a similar role in the summer of 2017 in bringing on Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director to hasten the departure of Trump’s first chief of staff, Reince Priebus.

“There was no Plan B and whoever advised him that Nick Ayers was the right person and would accept the job did the president a grave disservice,” said former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, a frequent Kushner critic. “You know you’ve had to make this change for months and now you have this audition call in the middle of the time the Democrats are gearing up to take you down?”

Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a history of White House chiefs of staff, recalled what James A. Baker III — who served as chief of staff to two former presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — told his successors: “Congratulations! You’ve got the worst blanking job in government.”

“That’s true in the best of times, with presidents who understand and value the position,” Whipple said, “but these are not the best of times.”

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s lead attorney for the Russia investigation, said he does not expect — or want — the president to tap a chief of staff who will be a forceful critic of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe because the legal team can handle that. Rather, he said, Trump needs “political people, since the president is going into his reelection.”

Trump has told associates he is keen to have a more politically savvy and public-facing chief of staff than Kelly — a strategist to guide him through his 2020 campaign, counter the Democrats and devise ways to boost his popularity.

Several contenders fit that bill. Meadows, who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is an informal political adviser to Trump and a frequent defender on cable television, as is Bossie, who has experience as a House investigator of Clinton scandals. Bossie and his co-author Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager, are scheduled to have lunch with Trump at the White House on Friday, which was planned before the chief of staff vacancy, according to people familiar with the session.

Conway was mentioned Monday as a possibility because of her work as Trump’s campaign manager, combative instincts, television presence and rapport with the president. But it was unclear whether she was even interested in being considered for the role.

Some Trump allies also were encouraging friends in the administration to consider Perry, pitching him because of his firm grasp of immigration and border policy and experience running a large state and federal agency, according to a person involved in the discussions.

Christie’s allies said they do not expect him to be offered the job as long as Kushner remains a top White House staffer, describing their relationship as largely repaired from its past tensions but still not strong enough to enable Christie to fully enter the Trump orbit. Nevertheless, Christie boosters continue to urge Trump to consider him, citing his governing experience and political acumen.

The guessing game has led to intense speculation about Trump’s interactions in recent days. For instance, Trump aides mentioned Santorum as a contender after he was spotted with the president at Saturday’s Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia. They noted Santorum’s political skills and populist conservative ideology could make him a contender.

Another dark-horse candidate bowed out before even interviewing for the job. After being mentioned as a “wild card” pick, New York Yankees President Randy Levine announced that he would stick with baseball.

“I have spoken to nobody about the chief of staff job,” Levine said in a statement Monday to Fox News. “I have great respect for the president but am very happy being president of the Yankees.”

Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.

[silverplumespectre]

Guide To The Colorado Ghost Towns And Mining Camps.  Written by Perry Eberhart, the book is a fourth edition  published by the Swallow Press in 1987.

"This is not a history book. Rather it is a directory of towns, and compilation of known information about those towns. In undertaking the stud, I was amazed at the amount of legend and contradictory information Colorado history has collected in just one hundred years. Who was it that said: 'History is the perpetuation of saleable gossip'? (Perhaps, nobody has said it yet. In that case, it's mine, all mine.)

[batboyblog]

SUPER! Gay/Queer YA Reading List!

Are you looking for some great Gay/Queer YA books?! Well I have a list for you!  if you need help picking out a book my ask box is always open drop me a line! or just stop by to tell me what you thought of one of the books! I always want to know! 

Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli

Social Skills by Sara Alva

Silent by Sara Alva

One Man Guy by Michael Barakiva

Hold My Hand by Michael Barakiva

Wonders of the Invisible World by Christopher Barzak

Alan Cole Is Not a Coward by Eric Bell

Alan Cole Doesn't Dance by Eric Bell

Queeroes by Steven Bereznai

The Darkest Part of the Forest by Holly Black

Ziggy, Stardust and Me by James Brandon

Felix Yz by Lisa Bunker

Exit Plans for Teenage Freaks by 'Nathan Burgoine

Last Bus to Everland by Sophie Cameron

The House of Impossible Beauties by Joseph Cassara

Peter Darling by Austin Chant

Gives Light by Rose Christo

Stranger Than Fanfiction by Chris Colfer

Carry the Ocean by Heidi Cullinan

The Love Interest by Cale Dietrich

There Goes Sunday School by Alexander C. Eberhart

Lock & West by Alexander C. Eberhart

The Screwed Up Life of Charlie the Second by Drew Ferguson

Love & Other Curses by Michael Thomas Ford

Only Mostly Devastated by Sophie Gonzales

Tales from Foster High by John Goode

How Not to Ask a Boy to Prom by S.J. Goslee

Will Grayson, Will Grayson by John Green & David Levithan

Half Bad by Sally Green

Half Wild by Sally Green

Half Lost by Sally Green

Heartbreak Boys by Simon James Green

Geography Club by Brent Hartinger

We Contain Multitudes by Sarah Henstra

Middle School's a Drag, You Better Werk by Greg Howard

Social Intercourse by Greg Howard

Totally Joe by James Howe 

After School Activities by Dirk Hunter 

At the Edge of the Universe by Shaun David Hutchinson

The Past and Other Things That Should Stay Buried by Shaun David Hutchinson

We Are the Ants by Shaun David Hutchinson

The Five Stages of Andrew Brawley by Shaun David Hutchinson

The Boy Who Couldn't Fly Straight by Jeff Jacobson

Haffling by Caleb James

The Red Sheet by Mia Kerick

The Lightning-Struck Heart by T.J. Klune

A Destiny of Dragons by T.J. Klune

The Consumption of Magic by T.J. Klune

A Wish Upon the Stars by T.J. Klune

The Extraordinaries by T.J. Klune

Openly Straight by Bill Konigsberg

Autoboyography by Christina Lauren

The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzi Lee

Two Boys Kissing by David Levithan

Every Day by David Levithan

Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan

How to Repair a Mechanical Heart by J.C. Lillis

When Ryan Came Back by Devon McCormack

Red, White & Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston

Vivaldi in the Dark by Matthew J. Metzger

Life as a Teenage Vampire by Amanda Meuwissen

The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller

The Art of Starving by Sam J. Miller

Hero by Perry Moore

Marco Impossible by Hannah Moskowitz

Like a Love Story by Abdi Nazemian

I'll Give You the Sun by Jandy Nelson

More Than This by Patrick Ness

Earth to Charlie by Justin Olson

Play Me, I'm Yours by Madison Parker

Here's to You, Zeb Pike by Johanna Parkhurst

Junior Hero Blues by J.K. Pendragon

When Everything Feels Like the Movies by Raziel Reid

Jack of Hearts by Lev A.C. Rosen

Camp by Lev A.C. Rosen

Carry On by Rainbow Rowell

Wayward Son by Rainbow Rowell

My Awesome/Awful Popularity Plan by Seth Rudetsky

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe by Benjamin Alire Sáenz

Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez

Rainbow High by Alex Sanchez

Rainbow Road by Alex Sanchez

So Hard to Say by Alex Sanchez

They Both Die at the End by Adam Silvera

History Is All You Left Me by Adam Silvera

More Happy Than Not by Adam Silvera

Grasshopper Jungle by Andrew Smith

Freak Show by James St. James

Ray of Sunlight by Brynn Stein

Imaginary by Jamie Sullivan

(In)visible by Anyta Sunday

The Dangerous Art of Blending In by Angelo Surmelis

366 Days by Kiyoshi Tanaka

Cemetery Boys by Aiden Thomas

Wild and Crooked by Leah Thomas

Because You'll Never Meet Me by Leah Thomas

Fan Art by Sarah Tregay

Suicide Watch by Kelley York

Special thanks to Trace for the header and subheads

the Header is Red White & Royal Blue and Carry On, Red is Jack of Hearts, Orange is Alan Cole is Not a Coward, Yellow is Heartbreak Boys, Green is The Lightening Struck-Heart, Blue is Boy Meets Boy, and Purple is Cemetery Boys

Please remember to Reblog and Share so people can find good books to read, and again feel free to send me an ask if you need help or just to let me know how a book is.