• When it comes to money, I'm a big budgeter, and my husband prefers taking risks.
• Now that we're building a house together, our differences are causing some disagreements.
• We've learned to stay flexible and balance each other's approaches.

My husband and I have very different ideas about financial responsibility.

When we're feeling stressed about money, my instinct is to run the numbers and account for every financial what-if. He's a big-picture dreamer who sees what something could become and is more willing to say, "We'll figure it out."

His attitude has paid off before. He had the vision for our first home, which we bought for under $100,000 and recently sold for a decent profit after 13 years of renovations.

I know some of the best things we've done together wouldn't have happened without my husband's willingness to take a chance, but our differences have still caused some friction over the years.

Now that we're building a new home together, we're trying to balance my need to plan for the unknown with his belief that we'll find a way forward.

After 13 years, we took a risk and sold our home

For 13 years, we'd lived in the same place. My husband had moved frequently as a child, and he wanted his two daughters to have a consistent place to call home.

Leaving this house behind was bittersweet, but my oldest stepdaughter had just bought her own house, and my younger one was heading off to college. We were ready for what came next.

We could have bought an existing house needing renovations. Instead, we found land in southern Maine that felt worth taking a risk on.

We've always loved the area. My family has an annual reunion there, where we spend a week at the beach. Our new property will hopefully give us that lifestyle without the summer crowds: It's more than 2 ½ acres with hiking trails next door, a nearby kayak and paddleboard launch, and the ocean just a short drive away.

We decided to go for it, and by the end of August, our old house was nearly empty. My younger stepdaughter left for college on a Wednesday, we moved the rest of our things to a rental on a Thursday, and officially sold the house that Friday.

Every estimate comes with an 'unless'

In September, we began building our 1,500-square-foot house.

We're now paying $3,000 a month for a rental home — with a construction loan on top of that — and keeping track of a lot of numbers, from lumber and labor to excavation, plumbing, electrical, permits, and finishes.

My husband is doing most of the construction himself, which is what makes this project possible. If we had to pay for all of the labor, we probably couldn't afford to build right now.

However, that's not to say this hasn't been a very stressful time. We think we've accounted for everything, but every estimate has an asterisk: Unless lumber prices go up. Unless a contractor's price changes.

Unless we hit ledge — that is, solid bedrock beneath the soil that can be expensive to excavate. We might have to rethink the foundation or adjust the entire plan once we see what's underground.

I find that uncomfortable, but my husband doesn't.

We're leaving room to adjust

My husband can picture what this property could become over time, and has big dreams for it.

He wanted a garage, a small cottage where our family could stay when they visit, a little more space, and nicer finishes in some areas. I kept bringing us back to what we could afford right now, and how much we wanted to keep in savings rather than put everything into the house.

After a lot of discussion, we decided to start small. We're building for the life we have today, while — at his request — leaving room for the one we might want tomorrow. The garage and cottage can wait. For now, we're focusing on getting the house right without stretching our budget too far.

That means staying flexible. For instance, my husband wants a finished basement, and I agreed, knowing this would give us the option to add a third bedroom down the road.

Though the cost difference between a basement and an unfinished crawl space isn't huge upfront, hitting ledge could put us thousands — or even tens of thousands — over budget.

We're willing to give the basement a shot, but if excavation costs start climbing, we may have to scale back to a crawl space and save the extra bedroom for another day.

We have a plan, but we know it might change once we get further into the build. I'll keep making the spreadsheets and asking for the numbers. He'll keep looking at the big picture and reminding me why we decided to do this.

This project, and my husband, have taught me that financial responsibility isn't necessarily about eliminating every risk, but knowing which risks are worth taking and staying open to changing course.

It’s another No Kings weekend in the United States of America. Demonstrations against Donald Trump’s imperial presidency are taking place across the country, trying to raise awareness for the midterm elections that are just over two weeks away, while registering a collective complaint against arguably the most un-American administration in our country’s history.

And yet, I can’t help but feel underwhelmed. This is not to throw cynical shade at the resistance-coded No Kings movement. Many people are struggling (even more than usual) thanks to Trump’s mishandling of the economy, and not everyone has the time to take to the streets and demand accountability for a uniquely corrupt, lawless and bigoted president. Furthermore, anyone who does make the effort to dissent in a time of naked authoritarianism deserves commendation, not eye-rolls.

No, what underwhelms me is a certain subset of Americans who are not attending these protests. This cohort (according to recent polls) apparently exists but appears to lack the courage to stand up and be counted in public: right-of-center voters that are more loyal to the Constitution than to Trump.

There ought to be nonstop protests across the U.S. against an illegal war that’s crippling millions of Americans’ budgets, making the world less safe and failing at every one of its constantly-shifting stated objectives.

A Fox News poll conducted between Oct. 9-12 found that among self-identified MAGA Republicans, Trump’s approval rating is 95% — a figure that would make most dictators blush. Meanwhile, among Republicans who don’t self-identify with the cult of Trump, the president is underwater: 47% approve, while 52% disapprove. Among independents, 22% approve and 78% disapprove.

Hey, non-MAGA Republicans and independents who live in objective reality, now’s a good time to show your faces in public!

It’s one thing to be a career GOP politician, terrified of crossing Trump for fear of losing their position of power. It’s spineless and opportunistic, of course, but at least it’s a reason. What’s the excuse for the rest of you?

Surely Trump’s relentless disrespect of American values and constitutional rights — like freedom of speech and religion; due process; birthright citizenship; prohibitions on bribes from foreign governments and warrantless searches; the freedom to walk outside without proof of citizenship — ought to have you mad as hell and taking to the streets. If you call yourself a libertarian or a conservative, then obviously you should see Trump as a greater threat to the rule of law and civil liberties than annoying woke college undergrads. If you’re a right-leaning independent, then Trump and his family gorging on ill-gotten countless billions must have you willing to let bygones be bygones and ready to march in the streets side by side with your liberal neighbors.

There ought to be nonstop protests across the U.S. against an illegal war that’s crippling millions of Americans’ budgets, making the world less safe and failing at every one of its constantly-shifting stated objectives. There should be investigations by the party that controls both houses of Congress into his and his family’s exploitation of our government to make themselves as rich as the petroleum kleptocrats they partner with in business. The only appropriate “American” reaction to the administration’s overt bigotry toward Muslims, immigrants and any number of other people is bipartisan revulsion.

And the politicization of our military — infused with an illiberal and intolerant ideology known as Christian nationalism — ought to curl the spine of any constitutional conservative. For Americans still bitter about “Woke 1” speech-policing and temporary Covid-19 vaccine requirements, the administration’s efforts to brand its political opponents as “domestic terrorists” and its use of a secret police force to shoot and detain Americans without due process or accountability should have them firmly in the “anyone but MAGA” camp.

But I’m confident few, if any, of these folks will attend No Kings rallies this weekend. Whether because of apathy or fear of catching cooties from anything associated with Democrats or the left, the result is the same: they’ll be sitting on the sidelines as Trump gobbles up more American yardage for himself.

Hey, non-MAGA Republicans and independents who live in objective reality, now’s a good time to show your faces in public!

It’s possible that the polls predicting a “blue wave” election are correct. But a midterm “wipeout” isn’t enough for America to recover. Impeachments, investigations and public shaming ought to be the order of the day if Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress, but even that won’t do. For America to achieve some semblance of a shared national identity, there must be a near-universal call for a return to decency and respect for plurality. But that can only happen when roughly half the country demands the end of an unprecedented American personality cult that they’ve voted for in three consecutive elections.

I’m glad No Kings is drawing people to the streets and encouraging people to vote. It’s just not nearly enough. Not until the non-left — composed of non-MAGA Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and anti-woke centrists — confronts its own complicity and forges its own No Kings movement.

The post What’s missing at No Kings? The Republicans who say they’re fed up with Trump. appeared first on MS NOW.

Setting aside the jokes about the shortness of Katie Zacharia’s tenure as White House press secretary, the controversy over her claim to be a lawyer obscures a more damaging issue. For years, she promoted some of the most heinous and bizarre conspiracy theories bubbling up from the right-wing swamp. Simply put: Zacharia was ousted for the wrong reason. Her embrace of extreme and downright loony assertions amount to a much stronger basis for dismissal than her bogus lawyer claim.

Zacharia’s social media history suggests a worldview colored by baseless thinking, defamatory accusations and sinister fantasies — not exactly a good look for someone tasked with conveying the U.S. president’s policies and actions to the press and public with authority and integrity. The noxiousness of her posts and reposts was apparently evident even to her, since she deleted many of them before her new role was announced.

According to reporting by CNN, the Bulwark and the newsletter Popular Information, Zacharia has repeatedly accused people, particularly Democrats, of sexually molesting children. In April 2022, she reposted and later deleted a Truth Social post from “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander: “Democrats want to mask and rape your children. That’s their satanic platform.”

She repeatedly referred to Democratic operative and former White House chief of staff John Podesta as a “pedo,” apparently still connecting him to an outrageous child-abuse conspiracy theory that had been debunked years earlier. She later paid tribute to the late Robert David Steele, a conspiracist who claimed that children were being kidnapped and sent to a colony on Mars: “He was exposing the pedo rings of the elite cabal,” Zacharia wrote. “May he Rest in Peace and the work of his hands not have been in vain.” In another Truth Social post, she noted that “the radical left Hollywood elites are sick pedo cannibals.” She added, “Change my mind.”

If Trump does indeed find another role for Zacharia in his administration, questions should be asked.

Another of Zacharia’s reposts suggested that Joan Rivers’ death in 2014 was somehow connected to an insulting crack the comedian once made about the Obamas: “Remember that time Joan Rivers said Obama was gay and Michelle had a dick then suddenly died?”

This wasn’t the output of a mischievous teen troll; Zacharia’s controversial deleted posts and reposts date from as recently as 2022. By then, Zacharia was in her late 30s and had been employed in various senior communications roles, including most recently as an adviser to Truth Social, the Trump-owned social media platform.

Zacharia’s deleted posts on political issues were problematic for another reason. For instance, she re-posted and deleted a tweet accusing the Justice Department of covering up the crimes of people involved in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, an opinion at odds with the administration she was tapped to speak for. Last year, she advocated suspending habeas corpus — the fundamental right to challenge detention in court — for migrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an extreme and authoritarian measure. (Zacharia’s legal theory, if any, was that the Constitution justifies denial of this right in cases of rebellion or invasion.)

In its article Tuesday on this social media activity, CNN reported that neither Zacharia nor White House communications director Steven Cheung directly addressed the issue. In a statement, CNN reported, Cheung called her “uniquely qualified” and “whip smart to help inform the American people.” The White House responded to Popular Information’s request for comment by referring it “to the President’s TRUTH on Katie,” a post in which Trump praised Zacharia as “a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning.” Zacharia wasn’t asked about these posts in interviews with three conservative outlets, including Fox News, between Thursday and her ousting Friday.

Clearly, the safe space couldn’t last. Trump apparently realized that if she ever assumed the podium again, Zacharia would inevitably face a barrage of questions about herself. That, too, is problematic: A press secretary shouldn’t be the story. But Zacharia’s history of hair-raising statements rightly made her one.

The lawyergate bubble burst in just five days. On Thursday, in an interview with right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec — himself a noted purveyor of conspiracy theories — Zacharia acknowledged that she didn’t pass the California bar exam. On advice from legal experts, she said, she decided that it was proper to call herself a lawyer but not an “attorney.” She said much the same to the New York Times, which reported on Thursday that she had identified herself on LinkedIn as general counsel to a group led by a Trump loyalist. In the wake of a CNN report Thursday that Zacharia had shared at least 15 social media posts over the past two years in which she referred to herself as an attorney, she told Sean Hannity that those were retweets of a title she had been given — but she was out shortly after lunchtime Friday.

But if Trump does indeed find another role for Zacharia in his administration, questions should be asked. Among them: Did she really think Hollywood “elites” engaged in pedophilia and cannibalism? How did she come by this knowledge, and who are the individuals who’ve engaged in these repulsive crimes? Is the Justice Department still covering up Epstein’s crimes? Does she truly believe there’s a lost colony of kidnapped children on Mars? As press secretary, there was no way Zacharia could keep the public focus on war, the economy, healthcare and the midterm elections while also defending a conspiracy about Joan Rivers’ death. But a less prominent position doesn’t moot the questions that should be asked if Zacharia is drawing a taxpayer-funded salary.

For Trump, media controversy may be on brand. The White House’s most recent top spokesperson had been a font of misinformation, outrageous “theories” and mortifying lies. In view of her boss’ track record, that may not be a bug or even a feature. It may be why Zacharia got the job in the first place.

The post The real Katie Zacharia controversy wasn’t her claim to be a lawyer appeared first on MS NOW.

White House press secretary Katie Zacharia resigned Friday after just five days in the job, following President Donald Trump’s advice.

---

Zacharia’s departure came barely a week after she was named to the post, succeeding Karoline Leavitt, and after a heavily questioned first press briefing before the media.

RELATED: Trump’s Attack on Mail-In Voting Seeks to Create an Advantage for Republicans

The crisis was directly linked to doubts about her legal training. After initially announcing her and publicly describing her as a lawyer, questions arose over the past week as to whether she had actually passed the bar exam to practice as such, despite being a graduate of Pepperdine University’s law school in California.

Definitive confirmation of the suspicions came last Thursday, when Zacharia admitted in an interview with Fox News that she had not passed the bar exam. The revelation intensified media criticism and opened an intense debate about vetting and background-check processes at the White House.

Facing the media siege, Trump chose to intervene publicly Friday morning. Leaving the White House, Trump told reporters that he had directly advised Zacharia to reconsider remaining in the job given the hostility of the environment.

President Trump is a kind, wonderful, gracious, thoughtful, enthusiastic, and hardworking man. I wish more Americans appreciated him. No one will ever make America great the way he has and continues to.

It was an honor to work for him. pic.twitter.com/Tp4NizrhE2

— Katie Zacharia (@KatieZacharia) October 17, 2026

The U.S. president said there is no rush to immediately announce a replacement to fill the vacancy left by Zacharia at the press room podium.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that puts on hold a sweeping new sanctions package targeting the Russian economy, telling Congress the pause was in the national interest.

Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation. It drew shift condemnation from congressional Democrats.

Named after late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the legislation had sought to clamp down more quickly on the flow of financial resources fueling the war against Ukraine.

Trump’s unexpected decision comes a week after he stunningly said the U.S. had agreed to purchase diesel from Russia to try to bring down global energy prices, despite that potentially hurting Ukraine in its war with Russia.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll published Oct. 1 found that Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war and blame him for higher prices. Trump’s approval ratings have sunk to near-historic lows and pressure is mounting as Republicans try to hold control of both chambers of Congress after midterm elections on Nov. 3.

Sanctions were seen as part of Graham’s legacy

Graham, a close ally and friend of the president, had just returned from Ukraine when he unexpectedly died in July. He had advocated for stricter U.S. sanctions against Russia as a way of pressuring it to end its war in Ukraine.

His colleagues in Congress responded with bipartisan support after his death and Trump attached his signature to the legislation — then changed his mind Friday.

The package had been meant to starve Russian President Vladimir Putin of the resources Moscow needs to continue its war in Ukraine after invading its neighbor more than four years ago. The bill, also drafted by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., had sought to sanction Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of tankers that keeps Russian energy moving.

It also directed Trump to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

Blumenthal said in a statement that Trump was turning his back on “the majority of Americans, their representatives in both houses of Congress, and our European allies.”

“These waivers have nothing to do with our national security, and everything to do with sucking up to Vladimir Putin,” Blumenthal said.

Democratic Virginia Rep. Don Beyer noted on social media shortly after the announcement of the sanctions being suspended that he and others had “warned” Trump might make such a move. The veteran congressman, who spoke out against the bill as it was debated, called on Congress to “fix this flawed law to stop Trump from capitulating to Putin and ensure that it truly supports Ukraine.”

The White House did not immediately explain how pausing the sanctions was in the national interest. The decision was posted on the White House website late in the evening, and the notification noted that the report explaining the decision had been submitted to Congress.

Still, it comes as Trump has increasingly lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, blaming him for failing to make a deal with Putin to end the fighting.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, had remained mostly quiet since the passage of the bill with large majorities in the House and Senate following Graham’s sudden death — with lawmakers urged ahead by Zelenskyy.

Trump’s action follows announced diesel deal with Putin

Under last week’s agreement, Trump said Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.”

Trump’s striking a diesel deal with Putin has been pilloried by Republicans and Democrats alike who say it will help Russia execute its war against Ukraine — without making a different to global fuel prices, which are elevated mostly due to Trump’s war on Iran.

The sanctions that Trump has now suspended, meanwhile, also had become a campaign centerpiece for Sen. Darline Graham, the late senator’s sister who was appointed to serve out the remaining months in his current term. She is now running to replace him in the Senate more permanently.

Darline Graham said in a statement after Trump signed the bill, “I wish Lindsey were here to celebrate this historic day.” In a debate earlier this week with Democratic nominee Annie Andrews, Graham — who has Trump’s endorsement and is expected to campaign with him in South Carolina next week — said she had been “so proud” to help get the measure passed.

She acknowledged, however, that it was the president’s purview as to how he implemented it.

“It gives the president tools that he can use if he so chooses, to end the war through economic sanctions,” Graham said Sunday during a debate in Columbia. “So that’s up to him as to whether or not he wants to use it, or whether he wants to use something else, but I think the purpose of it is to bring down the gas prices and ultimately end the war. And when the war ends, gas prices will fall.”

The post Trump puts new Russia sanctions that he recently signed into law on hold, citing national interest appeared first on MS NOW.

• President Donald Trump chose Katie Zacharia to serve as the new White House press secretary.
• After five days, a White House official said that she is "transitioning out" of the role.
• Zacharia is among three other former press secretaries with tenures lasting under two months.

Katie Zacharia's first briefing as President Donald Trump's press secretary was on Tuesday. By Friday, the White House confirmed she was out.

The record five-day tenure came after days of missteps by Zacharia, and amid two watchdog groups filing complaints with the State Bar of California on Wednesday, asking it to investigate whether she violated California law by calling herself a lawyer.

While the longest-serving press secretary was Stephen Early, who held the post for 12 years under Franklin D. Roosevelt, only four press secretaries have lasted under two months.

Here's a closer look at White House press secretaries with the shortest tenures.

Katie Zacharia

Katie Zacharia made her White House press briefing debut on Tuesday and quickly came under intense scrutiny over her legal credentials.

Shortly after Tuesday's briefing, she was asked which state she passed the bar exam in and replied: "When I moved to China."

On Thursday in an interview with right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec, Zacharia said she took the bar exam but failed, and never retook it.

Zacharia moved to China after earning her law degree in 2011, and told Posobiec she had already preregistered for the bar exam before moving to Beijing, where her husband was working at an American private equity firm.

"I didn't want to withdraw from that," Zacharia said of the bar exam. "And we knew we would be moving out to China, and I was obviously incredibly distracted and overwhelmed and excited for finally being married to someone who I had been long-distance from for at least a year."

She served as press secretary between October 12 and October 16.

Stephen Early

Stephen Early is both the longest-serving press secretary in US history and the press secretary with the second-shortest tenure.

He was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's press secretary for 12 years, from 1933 to March 1945.

Early then briefly returned as acting press secretary under President Harry S. Truman in December 1950 after the death of press secretary Charles Ross.

Early was in the position for 14 days, from December 5 to December 18, 1950.

Jerald TerHorst

Jerald TerHorst served as President Gerald Ford's press secretary for over one month, from August 9 to September 8, 1974.

He resigned in protest of Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal.

TerHorst said he could not defend Ford's decision in good conscience, despite his long-standing friendship with the president.

Jonathan Daniels

Jonathan Daniels served a short tenure as press secretary at the end of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency and at the beginning of Harry S. Truman's.

That brings his tenure to 48 days, from March 29 to May 15, 1945.

He was appointed shortly before Roosevelt's death and stayed on temporarily to help Truman transition into the presidency.

Truman then selected Charles Ross as Daniels' replacement.

Katie Zacharia may not be a licensed lawyer, but as they say, she plays one on TV. Or at least, she did.

On Friday, the White House confirmed Zacharia would no longer be serving as President Donald Trump’s press secretary, just three days after her first and only media briefing. Her ouster followed criticism from pundits, ethics experts and, perhaps more importantly for Trump, a less-than-friendly interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Zacharia’s removal was also preceded by a California state bar ethics complaint alleging the now former press secretary had been incorrectly labeling herself a lawyer despite lacking a license to practice law. Indeed, when Trump was asked in front of cameras Wednesday in which state she had passed the bar exam, Zacharia responded, “When I moved to China.”

Zacharia has spent the past few days attempting damage control, for good reason. Few jobs require more public trust than representing the president of the United States. But trust, just like a license to practice law, must be earned.

Zacharia graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law in 2011. But that is not the same thing as being a licensed attorney, a term derived from the word “appointed” that refers to a lawyer who represents clients. State bar authorities regulate their profession, providing law licenses only to applicants who pass a rigorous written examination. The bar examination tests a broad array of legal topics, including criminal law, evidence, torts, property, constitutional law, contract law and professional responsibility, among others. Applicants must also pass a background check for “moral character” to determine whether any events in their past might cast doubt on their integrity to serve as an officer of the court.

Even after a person is admitted to the bar, lawyers must continue to pay annual dues to the state licensing authority, fulfill any continuing legal education requirements and refrain from any legal misconduct. The goal of regulators is to ensure that clients are represented only by lawyers with the requisite training, capability and trustworthiness.

According to the bar complaint filed by Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog organization, Zacharia is not admitted to practice law in any U.S. state, including California, where she lived until her recent move to Washington, D.C. According to The Wall Street Journal, Zacharia sat for the California bar after law school but did not pass. She then worked at a law firm in Beijing for two years, but China licenses only Chinese nationals to practice law. Even if she were licensed in China, that would not be sufficient to practice law in the U.S.

California law makes it a misdemeanor to advertise or hold oneself out as “practicing law or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active licensee of the State Bar.” Zacharia’s representations that she is a “lawyer” in television appearances for Fox News may have been misleading, but they likely do not arise to the level of holding oneself out as entitled to practice law under the statute.

For her part, Zacharia told The New York Times that this was all a misunderstanding, and that Pepperdine’s president personally told her it was fine to identify as a “lawyer” when appearing on cable TV, but that she should avoid “attorney” or “esquire.” (She also tried to clean up her earlier “moved to China” comment by claiming she had thought the question she was being asked was, “Where were you after law school?”)

But the questions about her conduct don’t end there. According to Zacharia’s LinkedIn profile, she served as general counsel for a conservative advocacy organization called Fix California, founded by former Trump administration official Richard Grenell, from 2024 to 2025. The general counsel is typically the top lawyer of an organization. That title suggests someone who is actively practicing law by providing legal advice for the organization and is permitted to accept service of process on its behalf. Recipients of correspondence on letterhead from someone using the title of general counsel would certainly assume that the writer was licensed to practice law. Using the title “general counsel” would seem to be “holding oneself out as entitled to practice law.” And without a license, that use would put Zacharia in violation of California law.

Similar accusations have been made against Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, who uses the title “doctor” despite never having practiced medicine. What is different about El-Sayed is that he not only graduated from medical school but he also obtained a doctoral degree in public health from Oxford University in England, earning the degree — and title — of “doctor.”

Zacharia’s tenure may be historically short, but her hiring still raises questions about the vetting the administration uses in hiring candidates for important positions. While some may argue that Zacharia’s position as press secretary does not require a law degree, her resume puffing should have been disqualifying for a White House role built on credibility. America must be able to have some amount of confidence in the person representing the presidential agenda in the briefing room.

Of course, Trump voters have long made peace with accepting a president who lies. What difference does it make if his press secretary did, too?

The post The rise and fall of TV ‘lawyer’ Katie Zacharia appeared first on MS NOW.

• Katie Zacharia is out as White House press secretary after five days on the job.
• That's likely a record for the shortest-serving White House press secretary in history.
• Here are 10 other things that last longer than Zacharia's time in the White House.

Katie Zacharia is out as White House press secretary after five days on the job, officials confirmed on Friday.

The lawyer-ish-person-turned-White House spokesperson had a rocky debut at the podium on Tuesday, during which she stumbled over prepared remarks and later raised eyebrows after she told a reporter that she passed the bar in China.

President Donald Trump said on Friday that he told Zacharia to reconsider the role. Later that day, a White House official told Business Insider that Zacharia was "transitioning out" of the position.

By standards of the Trump White House, which had a notorious revolving door during the first go-round, that's pretty short.

There are a lot of other things that lasted longer than Zacharia's tenure. Here are 10 of them.