Since the World Bank announced its timeline to select a new president two weeks there has been fierce backlash. Incumbent Jim Yong Kim’s term ends in June 2017. But the bank wants to decide his successor now, and quickly: The timeline outlined by the bank lasts less than a month, from August 25th to September 14th.

“It takes us six months to hire a junior economist. Why are we taking just a month to hire a president?” Daniel Sellen, chair of the bank’s staff association said to the Financial Times. The answer? Donald Trump.

The timeline would allow for a confirmation before the World Bank’s annual meeting in October and, coincidentally, the U.S. general election in November.

According to Hafed Al-Ghwell, a former staffer and adviser to the dean of the board of executive directors, “Jim Kim has been basically lobbying ... saying, ‘oh, you better choose [me] now before Trump might win and name somebody from his side.’ The entire process has been timed and planned … to finish before November,” based on conversations with current members on the board of directors.

The move is especially infuriating and disappointing to the bank’s international contingent and following, who witnessed the interference of the selection process by the 2012 U.S. domestic elections. Then, the Nigerian economist and former Managing Director of the bank Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was thought to be a shoo-in for the position. But a last minute intervention from Tim Geithner saw Russia, China and other close allies change their vote to support Jim Yong Kim, the American candidate. Something similar seems to be happening now.

On Friday morning, to the consternation of many of Clinton’s liberal critics—and supporters—it was reported that Kissinger was about to endorse Hillary Clinton alongside former Secretary of State George Schultz. But, after weeks of will he, won’t he speculation, Kissinger decided not to endorse anyone, releasing a joint statement with Schultz:

The Clinton campaign has explicitly targeted prominent Republicans throughout this election as it tries to convert suburban Republicans who are skeptical of Donald Trump. While many of Clinton’s critics on the left (myself included) have rolled their eyes at that outreach, Kissinger—along with Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz—was considered a bridge too far, given his decades-long record of “murderous, illegal foreign policy.” Courting Kissinger in the first place was a mistake, but missing out on his endorsement is the biggest gift the Clinton campaign has given the left in weeks, if not longer, even if it was inadvertent.

The Philadelphia born actor, whose death yesterday was just announced, was a fixture in countless movies and TV shows but will be best remembered for working with the Coen Brothers in five films. The partnership was based on mutual admiration. In the 1980s as they were starting their career, the Coens had seen Polito perform in Death of A Salesman and kept him in mind for a future production. In turn, he admired their first two films, Blood Simple and Raising Arizona. When he read the script for Miller’s Crossing he was determined to land the role of Johnny Casper, the hot-heated gangster who is forever complaining about “getting the high hat.” The Coens had actually wanted Polito to play Casper’s psychotic henchman, the Dane, but he pushed for the Casper role. During the audition, Polito stayed in character so much he yelled at the casting director for having a lapdog whose barking interrupted the performances. The Coens liked what they saw and Polito turned in a wonderfully twitchy, agitated performance as the murderously nervous Casper.

Polito was often described as a character actor, which is perhaps why he alliance with the Coens was so fruitful. In their early films, they didn’t really have stars but rather an assemble of character actors. Every performer was expected to be individualistic, quirky and weird. Aside from Johnny Casper, Polito also played the studio flunky Lou Breeze in Barton Fink, the hero-worshiping detective Da Fino in The Big Lebowski, and the dry cleaning huckster Creighton Tolliver in The Man Who Wasn’t There—he also had a small role as Mr. Bumstead in The Hudsucker Proxy. Of these performances, perhaps the best was as Tolliver, a figure who is both grotesque but also evokes genuine pathos when he is killed due to a misunderstanding.

Character acting is often dismissed as a secondary version of the thespians art, but Polito proved that the best character actors could have the range and complexity usually reserved for headlining stars.

Today, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the moderators for the upcoming Trump-Clinton showdowns. But, as Josh Israel over at ThinkProgress points out, there may be one massive conflict of interest for Fox News’ Chris Wallace, who will be moderating the last debate by himself: his personal and professional connection to Roger Ailes.

Since his ousting from Fox News, Ailes has been prepping Trump for the very debates that Wallace will be moderating. And, while Wallace is no Jeffrey Lord, he has spoken openly about his close ties to the former Fox head. As Israel notes, consider Wallace’s reaction in The New York Times to his boss’ departure from the company:

Roger Ailes is the best boss I’ve had in almost a half a century in journalism. I admired him tremendously professionally, and loved him personally. He and Rupert came up with the idea of Fox in the beginning, and as sad as I am for Roger to go, I can’t think of a better person to keep the vision of Fox News going than Rupert. ... I intend to stay at Fox and work for Rupert as hard and as loyally as I did for Roger.

There are people in tears. I shed mine a couple of days ago when the stories started to come out, that made this day seem like it was likely. I never knew a boss who transmitted a sense of mission, a team of common purpose, more than Roger did. And the thing that’s different from any place I ever worked is, people feel a personal connection to Roger, and I think a lot of people feel a deep sense of personal loss.

While it is entirely possible that Wallace will act as a fair moderator, Trump, who has tweeted before about “rigged” debates, may have just gotten exactly what he wanted.

In an abrupt about-face from the Republican Party’s pattern of outreach to Latino voters, on last night’s All in with Chris Hayes, Latinos for Trump founder Marco Gutierrez warned that without Donald Trump in the White House, there would be “taco trucks on every corner.”

The internet reacted to this doomsday prophecy with appropriate levels of puzzlement. It seemed to be the kind of vision that would, in fact, make America great again.

This was yet another moment when the Trump campaign’s ragtag band of surrogates and supporters veered seriously off-message and the party line. Remember the “Taco Mayor” of East Haven, Connecticut, Republican Joseph Maturo, Jr., who responded, “I might have tacos when I go home” to a reporter who asked him, “What are you doing for the Latino community today?” Considering that the interview took place after federal officials had arrested a “cancerous cadre” of police officers charged with terrorizing Latinos who entered the town, Maturo might have chosen to say something more relevant to the matter at hand. But instead, without missing a beat, he picked the taco.

And who can forget that the very candidate that Gutierrez was stumping for had also chosen the taco bowl as his olive branch of choice to demonstrate his love for Latinos. Trump’s “I love Hispanics” tweet on Cinco de Mayo was also lambasted and ridiculed, but it also revealed a consistent strain within the Republican Party’s brand of minority outreach: non-white constituents = food.

Now divested of its single point of connection to the Latino community, the Trump campaign will have to correct course–either restoring tacos to their monopoly position within its Latino outreach repertoire, or find another dish equally as compelling. The burrito? The quesadilla? Unfortunately, none have quite the appeal, the simple satisfaction, offered by the taco. Future opponents might do well to take the threat of “taco trucks on every corner” and run with it.

You may have heard that Fournier, the real life Carl Diggler is moving to Detroit, one of the few cities in his much-vaunted Real America™. His cushy contract with The Atlantic, where he took brave stands and wrote the same piece about how the political system needs to be disrupted, just in a civil way that doesn’t affect people like Fournier, over and over again, expired.

Fournier’s writing about politics has always been Aspen-ready—he has a holistic vision of leadership that bleeds into his analysis (“But can he LEAD?” sums up 80 percent of Fournier’s writing). But for his grand finale, Fournier set the question of leadership aside (begging the question, “Can Ron Fournier lead?”) and instead put on the cloak of false modesty and wrote about what he’s learned from working in journalism for 30 years.

In a lot of ways, it’s the perfect finale, because it sums up Fournier’s work perfectly. It’s incredibly lazy—there’s nothing here that you wouldn’t get from skimming The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Journalism—and full of platitudes. In his farewell, Fournier approaches “journalism” in the abstract, immaterial, vapid way he has approached politics for years—and yet, in many ways, this is his most revealing column yet.

Fournier patiently explains that journalists shouldn’t “cede control to the powerful” and tells them not to “follow the herd.” He cautions against focusing only on the horse race and patiently explaining how sourcing works: You need to cultivate sources, but you shouldn’t be afraid to burn them if necessary. Why Ron Fournier is explaining what “off the record” means is an open question, as is “Why is Ron Fournier writing a column full of self-evident truths about journalism?” But still: Who needs J-School when you have Ron Fournier?

And then there are sentences like this: “A reporter’s job is to get as close to the truth as possible, overriding personal biases and sifting through a rising churn of spin and lies to explain what happened and why it matters.” And, most astonishingly, this: “Don’t strain for balance or equivalence in a story where there is none. The truth is rarely black and white or evenly balanced between poles.” Fournier is the epitome of having to hear both sides. The most fitting thing about Fournier’s finale is that he ignored most of these lessons for most of his career.

Bossie is, with Floyd Brown (whom Bossie worked for), Roger Stone, and the traitor David Brock, an OG Clinton hater. He helped craft the anti-Clinton playbook in the ’90s, digging up dirt as early as 1992 on the family, and played an instrumental role in turning the Whitewater scandal into the sacred right-wing text it is today. (If that wasn’t bad enough, Bossie comes to Trump from Citizens United.) And, as of Thursday evening, he is now Donald Trump’s deputy campaign manager. According to The Washington Post, his responsibilities will include “crafting attacks against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton” and “mining past controversies involving her and former president Bill Clinton.”

The Clinton campaign responded as it always does when Trump makes a hire like this: John Podesta released a statement saying that he was shocked—shocked!—that Trump would continue to surround himself with fringe lunatics. “David Bossie is so craven and maniacal that in the heyday of the overreaching Gingrich-era Congress, the top Whitewater conspiracy theorist in the House had to fire him for doctoring evidence,” the statement reads. “This is the latest sign that Donald Trump has put the most extreme elements of the right-wing fringe in the driver’s seat of his campaign.”

But the biggest question surrounding Bossie’s hire is: What took Trump so long? Bossie had reportedly been doing some advising behind the scenes, but the one thing Trump’s campaign has done consistently is collect the architects of the vast right-wing conspiracy that nearly took down the Clintons in the ’90s. With Bossie joining the team, he’s almost completed the set.

University officials announced plans Thursday to create an institute for the study of slavery, rename two of its buildings after two African-Americans—including one slave who was sold by the university in 1838—and award preferential status to applicants the descendants of both the 272 slaves sold in 1838 and the slaves who built the university. University President John J. DeGioia also offered a formal apology for Georgetown’s past.

Though the offer of preferential admission status is certainly unprecedented by other universities, the question remains: Is it enough?

Georgetown University’s Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation—the committee dedicated to researching the extent to which the university relied on slavery (the answer is a ton) and finding a way to make things right—did make a recommendation for a “meaningful financial commitment” that seems to not have been taken up, at least in the form of scholarships. The committee released a 102-page report on the its findings and reconciliation plan. From the report:

(The university will be) exploring the feasibility of admission and financial-aid initiatives that might be established for the descendant community....

We have also returned frequently to the question of reparations. While we acknowledge that the moral debt of slaveholding and the sale of the enslaved people can never be repaid, we are convinced that reparative justice requires a meaningful financial commitment from the University.

Regardless, it seems Georgetown is making a step in the right direction—even if it doesn’t go nearly far enough.