washingtonmonthly--2020-02-11--New Hampshire and the Expectations Game

New Hampshire and the Expectations Game

If anyone is perfectly positioned for the New Hampshire primary , it ’ s Amy Klobuchar .
As Ryan Lizza notes , “ she benefits from very low expectations , so if she places ahead of any of the top four candidates — Buttigieg , Sanders , Biden and Warren—she will be able to claim a kind of victory.
” Despite this , there ’ s a palpable buzz around her campaign and the press on the ground seems unanimous that she ’ s surging at just the right time .
She got a further boost by winning the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Location .
It ’ s just hard to envision her having a disappointing night .
Lizza believes it ’ s possible that she could win , which would really shake up the race .
As for the rest , only Biden seems to be in a position to boast about something less than victory .
As the other candidates were hosting last-minute rallies numbering in the thousands , Biden was holding a meeting in a Manchester church .
The media coverage of his campaign reads more like a dirge than dispassionate analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might cause the limited support he actually has to collapse and give him a truly embarrassing result .
Yet , the flip side is that everyone is preparing to write his obituary tonight , and a second or third-place finish will exceed expectations and make him seem like The Comeback Kid .
He ’ s stronger than people think going forward into the more diverse electorates to come , but Michael Bloomberg is eating into his black support now and Buttigieg and perhaps Klobuchar ( after tonight ) could eat into his moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders will get the most votes in New Hampshire , possibly by a comfortable margin .
He was denied a clear and uncontested win in Iowa , so getting a first-place result is important to him .
Anything less will produce negative press and suppress the narrative he wants to create that he ’ s an unstoppable juggernaut .
Yet , in truth , his campaign will continue regardless of the result and maintain enough strength to win at least some delegates in nearly every contest .
So , in that sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tonight .
I can ’ t say the same for Pete Buttigieg .
He ’ s perceived as the winner of the Iowa caucuses where he most definitely exceeded expectations .
He ’ s seen a boost in his polls as a result , so he has some real momentum .
He ’ s been drawing large crowds in New Hampshire and he ’ s well-financed .
He could weather a second-place finish in New Hampshire , which would probably make him and Sanders the top finishers in the first two contests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New Hampshire , that ’ s the best he could have possibly done .
But he ’ s currently getting virtually no support from black voters , and it ’ s not clear when he can win another primary or caucus .
If he comes in third or worse , it really could spell the end of his campaign .
Elizabeth Warren is harder to gauge .
She seems likely to come in in third or fourth place , with fifth not out of the question .
None of these would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second-place finish would give her a nice narrative , and third would leave her in about the same place she was after Iowa .
A good night for her might be measured less on how she does than on how she can potentially benefit from the misfortune of others .
If Sanders underperforms , perhaps more of the left will give her campaign a look .
If Klobuchar flames out , she could wind up the last woman in the race .
If Buttigieg disappoints , then maybe she can get more attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombs , perhaps she can take his place as the candidate most likely to unite the party .
As long as she doesn ’ t trail the pack tonight , she should be able to spin a nice story about how she is strengthened by the result .
The one thing that seems clear is that fifth place is the thing to avoid .
Buttigieg seems like the candidate who most needs to win .
Klobuchar is the one who most needs to break into the top three .
There ’ s less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fifth-place would badly weaken all of them and possibly finish Warren off .
So , tonight I ’ ll be less interested in who wins than in the order in which people finish .

If anyone is perfectly positioned for the New Hampshire primary, it’s Amy Klobuchar. As Ryan Lizza notes, “she benefits from very low expectations, so if she places ahead of any of the top four candidates — Buttigieg, Sanders, Biden and Warren—she will be able to claim a kind of victory.” Despite this, there’s a palpable buzz around her campaign and the press on the ground seems unanimous that she’s surging at just the right time. She got a further boost by winning the early reporting precincts of Millville and Hart’s Location. It’s just hard to envision her having a disappointing night. Lizza believes it’s possible that she could win, which would really shake up the race.
As for the rest, only Biden seems to be in a position to boast about something less than victory. As the other candidates were hosting last-minute rallies numbering in the thousands, Biden was holding a meeting in a Manchester church. The media coverage of his campaign reads more like a dirge than dispassionate analysis. His problem is that this negativity might cause the limited support he actually has to collapse and give him a truly embarrassing result. Yet, the flip side is that everyone is preparing to write his obituary tonight, and a second or third-place finish will exceed expectations and make him seem like The Comeback Kid. He’s stronger than people think going forward into the more diverse electorates to come, but Michael Bloomberg is eating into his black support now and Buttigieg and perhaps Klobuchar (after tonight) could eat into his moderate vote.
Most analysts believe that Bernie Sanders will get the most votes in New Hampshire, possibly by a comfortable margin. He was denied a clear and uncontested win in Iowa, so getting a first-place result is important to him. Anything less will produce negative press and suppress the narrative he wants to create that he’s an unstoppable juggernaut. Yet, in truth, his campaign will continue regardless of the result and maintain enough strength to win at least some delegates in nearly every contest. So, in that sense, nothing is life or death for him tonight.
I can’t say the same for Pete Buttigieg. He’s perceived as the winner of the Iowa caucuses where he most definitely exceeded expectations. He’s seen a boost in his polls as a result, so he has some real momentum. He’s been drawing large crowds in New Hampshire and he’s well-financed. He could weather a second-place finish in New Hampshire, which would probably make him and Sanders the top finishers in the first two contests. If he can go two-for-two in Iowa and New Hampshire, that’s the best he could have possibly done. But he’s currently getting virtually no support from black voters, and it’s not clear when he can win another primary or caucus. If he comes in third or worse, it really could spell the end of his campaign.
Elizabeth Warren is harder to gauge. She seems likely to come in in third or fourth place, with fifth not out of the question. None of these would be good news for her campaign. A second-place finish would give her a nice narrative, and third would leave her in about the same place she was after Iowa. A good night for her might be measured less on how she does than on how she can potentially benefit from the misfortune of others. If Sanders underperforms, perhaps more of the left will give her campaign a look. If Klobuchar flames out, she could wind up the last woman in the race. If Buttigieg disappoints, then maybe she can get more attention from the press. And if Biden bombs, perhaps she can take his place as the candidate most likely to unite the party. As long as she doesn’t trail the pack tonight, she should be able to spin a nice story about how she is strengthened by the result.
The one thing that seems clear is that fifth place is the thing to avoid. Buttigieg seems like the candidate who most needs to win. Klobuchar is the one who most needs to break into the top three. There’s less at stake for the others, but fifth-place would badly weaken all of them and possibly finish Warren off.
So, tonight I’ll be less interested in who wins than in the order in which people finish.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-11--Fall Guys Keeping Getting Punished for the Offenses of the Powerful

Murder took place as the airplane was lifting off the runway , a lethal shot taken in the Humphrey Bogart movie , “ Casablanca.
” Rick Blaine pulled the trigger in front of the French police prefect Captain Renault .
The Vichy official witnessed it .
He allowed it .
And then Renault uttered those infamous words that said everything , but meant nothing : “ Round up the usual suspects.
” Murder also took place just as the airplane was taking off last month from Tehran ’ s Imam Khomeini International Airport .
Missiles were fired at the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passengers and crew on board .
Iranian officials witnessed it .
They may even have ordered it .
The government then made a predictable and cowardly move by rounding up the usual suspects .
Iran ’ s government is the latest authority preparing a show trial intended to bring peace to the streets and some justice to the murdered victims of Ukraine flight PS 752 .
Street protests were launched in Tehran shortly after the commercial Boeing 737 was felled from the sky by a land-based missile .
Iranian authorities eventually suggested that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jet at a moment of high tension and an anticipated American attack .
The shooters will go to jail .
Or worse .
The real guilty parties , however , remain in power and escape both arrest or conviction .
They inhabit the high offices and low politics of a theocratic regime .
The Islamic Republic holds that the Supreme Leader can do no wrong .
Its high-ranking military officers operate in an accountability-free chain of command .
The fall guys carry out policy , follow orders or , frightened , mistakenly launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a global call for justice that likely will result in unjust outcomes .
President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will not be held accountable .
Iranian officials knew the truth for three days , but pretended they had no idea .
On the other side of the Persian Gulf , in Saudi Arabia , five men have been sentenced to death for the murder and dismemberment of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi .
Pinning the death on these five is the kingdom ’ s response to an international call for justice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one man and his orders .
Since the man the CIA fingered is the sovereign who exists above the law , Saudi officials instead arrested and convicted individuals who carried out the gruesome deed , not those who ordered it .
The authorities went after the usual suspects .
In nearly every country , the usual suspects are the functionaries , intermediaries , fall guys , and fools who are like the moths that get too close to a flame and get burned .
Michael Cohen is sitting in jail while his boss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He turned on his master , but his credibility was shot .
Cohen likely is serving his time in remorse , trying to salvage his self-respect and dignity .
But his illegal acts weakened our democratic system and perverted our judicial system .
He is one of America ’ s usual suspects , along with Michael Flynn , George Papadopoulos , Roger Stone , Paul Manafort , Rick Gates and a host of others .
Even prison has its own code of justice and pecking order .
The convicted sex felon and fraudster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and dead in an unmonitored jail cell , taking with him his keen memory and his ken of contacts .
Asphyxiated and alone , Epstein ’ s suspicious death reeks of supreme negligence and potential foul play .
His countless , once-teenage female victims stumble along scarred in life while their famous johns strut scot-free along the streets of London , New York and Miami , and on private Caribbean islands .
Who gets caught ?
The usual suspects .
A couple of prison guards with seemingly no motivation to see Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet while Epstein sipped his last breaths .
No one truly powerful will suffer the consequences or be held accountable for this screw-up .
The usual suspects are a bunch of losers in every sense of the word .
Sometimes they come from disadvantaged backgrounds , and their only shot at escaping their conditions is to grab onto famous coattails .
Others are just dimwitted and susceptible to the perks of power and privilege , behaving as sycophants have through the ages and jumping as high as they ’ re told .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ America to Zimbabwe , and they will inevitably be charged , found guilty and imprisoned .
The louder ones will be silenced .
At a time when societies are questioning their systems of justice and law enforcement , when body cams and social media are amplifying questionable practices that have gone on for generations , a call to change the status quo is inevitable .
Iran arrested the bystander who took video of the missile downing the passenger jet .
Arresting the messenger is always a bad sign .
All the while , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catchy tune of injustice while regularly asking their minions to learn the melody and to , “ Play it .
Play it again .
”

Murder took place as the airplane was lifting off the runway, a lethal shot taken in the Humphrey Bogart movie, “Casablanca.” Rick Blaine pulled the trigger in front of the French police prefect Captain Renault. The Vichy official witnessed it. He allowed it. And then Renault uttered those infamous words that said everything, but meant nothing: “Round up the usual suspects.”
Murder also took place just as the airplane was taking off last month from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport. Missiles were fired at the Ukraine International Airlines plane, killing all 176 passengers and crew on board. Iranian officials witnessed it. They may even have ordered it. The government then made a predictable and cowardly move by rounding up the usual suspects.
Iran’s government is the latest authority preparing a show trial intended to bring peace to the streets and some justice to the murdered victims of Ukraine flight PS 752. Street protests were launched in Tehran shortly after the commercial Boeing 737 was felled from the sky by a land-based missile. Iranian authorities eventually suggested that errant, on-edge operators brought down the jet at a moment of high tension and an anticipated American attack. The shooters will go to jail. Or worse.
The real guilty parties, however, remain in power and escape both arrest or conviction. They inhabit the high offices and low politics of a theocratic regime. The Islamic Republic holds that the Supreme Leader can do no wrong. Its high-ranking military officers operate in an accountability-free chain of command.
The fall guys carry out policy, follow orders or, frightened, mistakenly launch missiles. The result is dead innocents and a global call for justice that likely will result in unjust outcomes. President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will not be held accountable. Iranian officials knew the truth for three days, but pretended they had no idea.
On the other side of the Persian Gulf, in Saudi Arabia, five men have been sentenced to death for the murder and dismemberment of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Pinning the death on these five is the kingdom’s response to an international call for justice. U.S. intelligence agencies blame the death on one man and his orders. Since the man the CIA fingered is the sovereign who exists above the law, Saudi officials instead arrested and convicted individuals who carried out the gruesome deed, not those who ordered it. The authorities went after the usual suspects.
In nearly every country, the usual suspects are the functionaries, intermediaries, fall guys, and fools who are like the moths that get too close to a flame and get burned.
Michael Cohen is sitting in jail while his boss sits prettily in the Oval Office. He turned on his master, but his credibility was shot. Cohen likely is serving his time in remorse, trying to salvage his self-respect and dignity. But his illegal acts weakened our democratic system and perverted our judicial system. He is one of America’s usual suspects, along with Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and a host of others.
The big guy gets acquitted.
Even prison has its own code of justice and pecking order. The convicted sex felon and fraudster, Jeffrey Epstein, was found strung up and dead in an unmonitored jail cell, taking with him his keen memory and his ken of contacts. Asphyxiated and alone, Epstein’s suspicious death reeks of supreme negligence and potential foul play. His countless, once-teenage female victims stumble along scarred in life while their famous johns strut scot-free along the streets of London, New York and Miami, and on private Caribbean islands.
Who gets caught? The usual suspects. A couple of prison guards with seemingly no motivation to see Epstein die. They were asleep or checking the internet while Epstein sipped his last breaths. No one truly powerful will suffer the consequences or be held accountable for this screw-up.
The usual suspects are a bunch of losers in every sense of the word. Sometimes they come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and their only shot at escaping their conditions is to grab onto famous coattails. Others are just dimwitted and susceptible to the perks of power and privilege, behaving as sycophants have through the ages and jumping as high as they’re told.
The usual suspects are everywhere, from America to Zimbabwe, and they will inevitably be charged, found guilty and imprisoned. The louder ones will be silenced. At a time when societies are questioning their systems of justice and law enforcement, when body cams and social media are amplifying questionable practices that have gone on for generations, a call to change the status quo is inevitable.
Iran arrested the bystander who took video of the missile downing the passenger jet. Arresting the messenger is always a bad sign. All the while, the powerful and privileged loudly hum the catchy tune of injustice while regularly asking their minions to learn the melody and to, “Play it. Play it again.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-12--Barr’s Tough on Crime Approach Only Applies to ‘Those People’

In November , Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and tampering with a witness during the Mueller investigation .
A discussion ensued among prosecutors about what to recommend at the sentencing hearing .
As Monday ’ s court deadline neared for the prosecutors to give a sentencing recommendation for Stone , it was still unclear what the office would do , after days of tense internal debates on the subject , according to people familiar with the matter .
Front-line prosecutors , some previously from Mueller ’ s team , argued for a sentence on the higher end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guidelines differently to get to a lower prison sentence .
The debate centered around whether they should seek more prison time for obstruction that impedes the administration of justice , these people said .
In the end , the office filed a recommendation in keeping with the line prosecutors ’ goals , and rejecting the lighter recommendation sought by their superiors , the people said… In a 22-page filing , prosecutors Jonathan Kravis , Michael J. Marando , Adam C. Jed and Aaron S.J .
Zelinksky wrote that a sentence of 87 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the applicable advisory Guidelines would accurately reflect the seriousness of his crimes and promote respect for the law.
” By Tuesday morning , the Washington Post reported that top Justice Department officials were planning to intervene to reduce the sentencing recommendation .
Of course , they are claiming that the president ’ s displeasure had nothing to do with their decision .
But in a clear indication that something nefarious is underway , all four of prosecutors who signed the original sentencing recommendation have withdrawn from the case .
What is even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intervention in this matter came on the same day that he made a speech extolling this administration ’ s commitment to “ law and order , ” while lambasting reformist prosecutors for being soft on crime .
Another similar problem is the increasing number of district attorneys who have fashioned for themselves a new role of judge-legislator-prosecutor .
These self-styled “ social justice ” reformers are refusing to enforce entire categories of law , including law against resisting police officers .
In so doing , these DAs are putting everyone in danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s cities back toward a more dangerous past…These DAs think they are helping people , but they end up hurting them .
These policies actually lead to greater criminality… We have seen these policies before .
They reigned supreme at the state level from the 1960s to the early 1990s .
During this time , violent crime rates tripled in our country .
They peaked in 1991 and 1992 .
By that time , the country had had enough .
Following the lead of the policies of the Reagan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started to make their systems tougher on crime .
I ’ m sure that Kevin Drum would have a few words for the attorney general about why violent crime peaked and what led to its reduction .
He would present the science behind the linkage between crime and lead exposure .
Another problem with Barr ’ s remarks is that these reformist DAs are actually being smart on crime—something that used to garner bipartisan support .
These left-leaning Democratic district attorneys have sought reforms to the bail system , curbed enforcement of lower-level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diversion programs over jail time and pledged to end mass incarceration .
They have also tried changing the culture in their offices , adjusting their prosecutorial priorities to upend a system they believe has contributed to the rise in prison populations .
And they ’ ve vowed to hold police accountable for alleged wrongdoing… Rachael Rollins was elected district attorney in Suffolk County , Massachusetts , which includes Boston , in 2018 and is the first woman of color to be elected DA in the state… “ I think people conflate the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime when it comes to nonviolent , nonserious crimes , with the fact that somehow I ’ m not going to be hyper-focused on victims and keeping our community safe , ” she said .
“ I am very thoughtful about what we ’ re doing at our municipal and district courts , but incredibly focused on getting accountability for victims of violent and serious crimes — overwhelmingly that are in poor communities and communities of color in Suffolk County.
” Those are the kind of prosecutors the attorney general is condemning .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s speech is the hypocrisy he is demonstrating .
A friend of the president who has been convicted of serious crimes deserves leniency beyond what the front-line prosecutors recommended .
At the same time , reformist DAs who are attempting to be smart on crime are attacked with lies and distortions .
It is clear that William Barr ’ s concept of tough on crime only applies to “ those people .
”

In November, Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and tampering with a witness during the Mueller investigation. A discussion ensued among prosecutors about what to recommend at the sentencing hearing.
As Monday’s court deadline neared for the prosecutors to give a sentencing recommendation for Stone, it was still unclear what the office would do, after days of tense internal debates on the subject, according to people familiar with the matter. Front-line prosecutors, some previously from Mueller’s team, argued for a sentence on the higher end, while their bosses wanted to calculate the guidelines differently to get to a lower prison sentence. The debate centered around whether they should seek more prison time for obstruction that impedes the administration of justice, these people said. In the end, the office filed a recommendation in keeping with the line prosecutors’ goals, and rejecting the lighter recommendation sought by their superiors, the people said… In a 22-page filing, prosecutors Jonathan Kravis, Michael J. Marando, Adam C. Jed and Aaron S.J. Zelinksky wrote that a sentence of 87 to 108 months, “consistent with the applicable advisory Guidelines would accurately reflect the seriousness of his crimes and promote respect for the law.”
Donald Trump wasn’t happy.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227122206783811585
By Tuesday morning, the Washington Post reported that top Justice Department officials were planning to intervene to reduce the sentencing recommendation. Of course, they are claiming that the president’s displeasure had nothing to do with their decision. But in a clear indication that something nefarious is underway, all four of prosecutors who signed the original sentencing recommendation have withdrawn from the case.
What is even more interesting is that the attorney general’s intervention in this matter came on the same day that he made a speech extolling this administration’s commitment to “law and order,” while lambasting reformist prosecutors for being soft on crime.
Another similar problem is the increasing number of district attorneys who have fashioned for themselves a new role of judge-legislator-prosecutor. These self-styled “social justice” reformers are refusing to enforce entire categories of law, including law against resisting police officers. In so doing, these DAs are putting everyone in danger. Their policies are pushing a number of America’s cities back toward a more dangerous past…These DAs think they are helping people, but they end up hurting them. These policies actually lead to greater criminality… We have seen these policies before. They reigned supreme at the state level from the 1960s to the early 1990s. During this time, violent crime rates tripled in our country. They peaked in 1991 and 1992. By that time, the country had had enough. Following the lead of the policies of the Reagan, H.W. Bush administrations, the states started to make their systems tougher on crime.
I’m sure that Kevin Drum would have a few words for the attorney general about why violent crime peaked and what led to its reduction. He would present the science behind the linkage between crime and lead exposure.
Another problem with Barr’s remarks is that these reformist DAs are actually being smart on crime—something that used to garner bipartisan support.
These left-leaning Democratic district attorneys have sought reforms to the bail system, curbed enforcement of lower-level marijuana offenses, increased the use of diversion programs over jail time and pledged to end mass incarceration. They have also tried changing the culture in their offices, adjusting their prosecutorial priorities to upend a system they believe has contributed to the rise in prison populations. And they’ve vowed to hold police accountable for alleged wrongdoing… Rachael Rollins was elected district attorney in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes Boston, in 2018 and is the first woman of color to be elected DA in the state… “I think people conflate the fact that I want to be smart on crime when it comes to nonviolent, nonserious crimes, with the fact that somehow I’m not going to be hyper-focused on victims and keeping our community safe,” she said. “I am very thoughtful about what we’re doing at our municipal and district courts, but incredibly focused on getting accountability for victims of violent and serious crimes — overwhelmingly that are in poor communities and communities of color in Suffolk County.”
Those are the kind of prosecutors the attorney general is condemning.
But perhaps the biggest problem with Barr’s speech is the hypocrisy he is demonstrating. A friend of the president who has been convicted of serious crimes deserves leniency beyond what the front-line prosecutors recommended. At the same time, reformist DAs who are attempting to be smart on crime are attacked with lies and distortions. It is clear that William Barr’s concept of tough on crime only applies to “those people.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-12--Where are the Department of Justice Whistleblowers?

The Republican Party gutted the rule of law in five acts this week .
First , Senator Lindsey Graham revealed that Attorney General Bill Barr had set up a pipeline for President Donald Trump ’ s personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , to provide so-called “ dirt ” on former Vice President Joe Biden .
Then , Barr confirmed that the U.S. Attorney ’ s office in Pittsburgh would accept gifts of dirt from Giuliani , despite the fact that Giuliani himself is under federal investigation .
Separately , the U.S. Attorney ’ s office for the District of Columbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump associate Roger Stone to seven to nine years in prison ; Stone was convicted last November of lying to Congress and witness tampering .
Then Trump tweeted in the middle of the night that he thought Stone ’ s sentencing recommendation was too harsh .
Hours later , a Department of Justice official announced the Department would be changing its sentencing recommendation for Stone , calling the original recommendation from the line prosecutors “ extreme ” and “ grossly disproportionate ” to Stone ’ s crimes .
The matter didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination of former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence .
Liu had served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia , and was , until recently , overseeing the Michael Flynn and Roger Stone prosecutions .
Liu ’ s confirmation hearing for Treasury had been scheduled for this week .
By pulling her nomination , Trump effectively quashed her congressional testimony on Stone .
To put it bluntly , Trump ’ s corruption of the Justice Department hides in plain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the attorney general who has made clear time and again that he ’ s perfectly willing to subvert the national interest to advance the president ’ s political interest .
Throughout the impeachment process , the Democratic-controlled House fulfilled its constitutional obligation to act as a check on a lawless president , even as Republican Senators vowed to protect him and abdicate their responsibility .
But Congress shouldn ’ t stop with Trump .
If anything , the events of this week have made it painfully necessary that House lawmakers must turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From his prebuttal spin of the Mueller Report , effectively manipulating the public about its findings , to unprecedentedly joining Criminal Division meetings with Rudy Giuliani and his client , both of whom were under investigation , to his latest moves this week , Barr has abandoned any semblance of independence .
Instead , he has telegraphed to the world that he serves as an extension of the president .
No one has Barr hurt more than the career public servants at the Justice Department .
Indeed , Barr ’ s latest actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —when the four federal prosecutors on the Stone case , whose stellar reputations were widely known , resigned .
Two of them had been part of Robert Mueller Special Counsel ’ s office .
These resignations sent shockwaves through the bipartisan Justice alumni community—of which I am a part—and served as the first public sign of discomfort among the department ’ s career attorneys .
Yet , despite the norms that the attorney general has gutted , DOJ has not produced the slew of career whistleblowers and truthtellers that we have seen coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several months .
Whether wittingly or unwittingly , other career public servants have stepped up to inform the American people about the harm this administration is incurring .
For instance , Lt. Col. Alex Vindman , Fiona Hill , and Marie Yovanovitch have spoken truth to power on Capitol Hill , and in op-eds .
While government attorneys may , by nature , be risk-averse and media-shy , the silence from those who are witnesses to Barr ’ s corruption is deafening .
Career attorneys have been in the rooms where this has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the email chains .
They are witnesses .
It ’ s time for them to tell us what they know .
I worked for 18 years as a career attorney at the Department of Justice , largely in the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General .
I recruited attorneys across the agency and befriended many prosecutors .
During my tenure , I concluded that Justice attorneys had an intense drive to do the right thing .
They chose careers in government service over lucrative law firm jobs .
Simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could serve justice and protect the rule of law .
The career attorneys I knew and worked with traveled the globe representing the United States on foreign soil to spread democracy and fight corruption .
We never discussed personal politics , because it wasn ’ t part of the day-to-day work of representing the American people .
I never knew my career colleagues ’ political affiliations , and they didn ’ t know mine .
It was a non-issue .
Every Justice leadership office , or front office , except that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mix of career lawyers and political appointees .
Many , if not most , critical decisions in the department are made after input from both career and political appointees at the highest levels .
Career attorneys join meetings with political appointees discussing the many legal and broad implications of every decision involving every individual case .
They go on trips with political leadership around the country and around the world .
Career attorneys also go to the White House and Eisenhower Executive Office Building for meetings with officials and from other agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off our democracy each day , I keep wondering : Where are the Justice Department ’ s whistleblowers ?
Where are the people who have spent decades proudly serving the American public and have been sitting in on meetings with Trump appointees for the last three years ?
There is no doubt in my mind that some of them are trying to impose the rule of law and institutional norms where they can .
They may feel , like former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly , that they are the grown-ups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , were they not there , the Trump sycophants would advance the worst of the Trump ’ s impulses .
They may think that they serve as an internal “ check ” on the president .
They may fear they are bound by attorney-client privilege .
I suspect they are largely keeping their heads down and getting their day-to-day work .
I know my former colleagues are going after child pornographers , protecting us from foreign threats , working to disrupt drug cartels , and enforcing the civil rights laws where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one at DOJ wants the treatment that the State Department ’ s whistleblowers have endured .
Nor does the public disparagement of Bruce Ohr , Lisa Page , Peter Strzok , Andrew McCabe , or Jim Comey suggest a pleasant path forward .
The prospect of hiring a personal attorney , looking for another job , and having one ’ s name in the papers goes against every ounce of the invisible , under-the-radar existence that Justice lawyers enjoy .
Perhaps they are worried about reaching retirement .
Perhaps they are concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a town as small as Washington .
Perhaps , they fear retribution to their families and livelihoods .
That ’ s why it ’ s so important for the House to conduct swift oversight hearings—it could provide some cover for the attorney whistleblowers .
Two years ago , I self-published a piece on Medium in which I lauded the attorneys at DOJ whose professionalism and integrity I relied on to ensure that justice would prevail in the Trump era .
I felt safer because I knew the type of high-caliber people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service , who tend to work for years and decades at the Department of Justice .
Two years later , I am feeling quite differently .
I say this recognizing that I haven ’ t faced the same moral dilemma as these career attorneys ; I left the Department before the Trump administration began .
But I believe there comes a point where keeping one ’ s head down becomes tantamount to keeping one ’ s head in the sand .
In today ’ s America , that approach actually fails to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn their back on Trump ’ s and Barr ’ s corruption , they will undercut the integrity of the country they have spent their lives serving .

The Republican Party gutted the rule of law in five acts this week. First, Senator Lindsey Graham revealed that Attorney General Bill Barr had set up a pipeline for President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to provide so-called “dirt” on former Vice President Joe Biden. Then, Barr confirmed that the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pittsburgh would accept gifts of dirt from Giuliani, despite the fact that Giuliani himself is under federal investigation.
Separately, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia on Tuesday recommended the court sentence longtime Trump associate Roger Stone to seven to nine years in prison; Stone was convicted last November of lying to Congress and witness tampering. Then Trump tweeted in the middle of the night that he thought Stone’s sentencing recommendation was too harsh. Hours later, a Department of Justice official announced the Department would be changing its sentencing recommendation for Stone, calling the original recommendation from the line prosecutors “extreme” and “grossly disproportionate” to Stone’s crimes.
The matter didn’t end there. The president subsequently pulled the nomination of former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Liu had served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and was, until recently, overseeing the Michael Flynn and Roger Stone prosecutions. Liu’s confirmation hearing for Treasury had been scheduled for this week. By pulling her nomination, Trump effectively quashed her congressional testimony on Stone.
To put it bluntly, Trump’s corruption of the Justice Department hides in plain sight. Equally obvious is the complicity of the attorney general who has made clear time and again that he’s perfectly willing to subvert the national interest to advance the president’s political interest.
Throughout the impeachment process, the Democratic-controlled House fulfilled its constitutional obligation to act as a check on a lawless president, even as Republican Senators vowed to protect him and abdicate their responsibility. But Congress shouldn’t stop with Trump. If anything, the events of this week have made it painfully necessary that House lawmakers must turn their sights on investigating Bill Barr.
From his prebuttal spin of the Mueller Report, effectively manipulating the public about its findings, to unprecedentedly joining Criminal Division meetings with Rudy Giuliani and his client, both of whom were under investigation, to his latest moves this week, Barr has abandoned any semblance of independence. Instead, he has telegraphed to the world that he serves as an extension of the president.
No one has Barr hurt more than the career public servants at the Justice Department. Indeed, Barr’s latest actions prompted a “Tuesday Night Massacre”—when the four federal prosecutors on the Stone case, whose stellar reputations were widely known, resigned. Two of them had been part of Robert Mueller Special Counsel’s office.
These resignations sent shockwaves through the bipartisan Justice alumni community—of which I am a part—and served as the first public sign of discomfort among the department’s career attorneys.
Yet, despite the norms that the attorney general has gutted, DOJ has not produced the slew of career whistleblowers and truthtellers that we have seen coming out of other agencies over the last several months.
Whether wittingly or unwittingly, other career public servants have stepped up to inform the American people about the harm this administration is incurring. For instance, Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, Fiona Hill, and Marie Yovanovitch have spoken truth to power on Capitol Hill, and in op-eds.
While government attorneys may, by nature, be risk-averse and media-shy, the silence from those who are witnesses to Barr’s corruption is deafening. Career attorneys have been in the rooms where this has happened; they’ve been on the email chains. They are witnesses. It’s time for them to tell us what they know.
I worked for 18 years as a career attorney at the Department of Justice, largely in the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. I recruited attorneys across the agency and befriended many prosecutors. During my tenure, I concluded that Justice attorneys had an intense drive to do the right thing. They chose careers in government service over lucrative law firm jobs. Simply put, they made personal sacrifices so they could serve justice and protect the rule of law.
The career attorneys I knew and worked with traveled the globe representing the United States on foreign soil to spread democracy and fight corruption. We never discussed personal politics, because it wasn’t part of the day-to-day work of representing the American people. I never knew my career colleagues’ political affiliations, and they didn’t know mine. It was a non-issue.
Every Justice leadership office, or front office, except that of the Attorney General, tends to employ a mix of career lawyers and political appointees. Many, if not most, critical decisions in the department are made after input from both career and political appointees at the highest levels. Career attorneys join meetings with political appointees discussing the many legal and broad implications of every decision involving every individual case. They go on trips with political leadership around the country and around the world. Career attorneys also go to the White House and Eisenhower Executive Office Building for meetings with officials and from other agencies.
So, as the guardrails fall off our democracy each day, I keep wondering: Where are the Justice Department’s whistleblowers? Where are the people who have spent decades proudly serving the American public and have been sitting in on meetings with Trump appointees for the last three years?
There is no doubt in my mind that some of them are trying to impose the rule of law and institutional norms where they can. They may feel, like former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, that they are the grown-ups in the room. They could believe that, were they not there, the Trump sycophants would advance the worst of the Trump’s impulses. They may think that they serve as an internal “check” on the president. They may fear they are bound by attorney-client privilege.
I suspect they are largely keeping their heads down and getting their day-to-day work. I know my former colleagues are going after child pornographers, protecting us from foreign threats, working to disrupt drug cartels, and enforcing the civil rights laws where they still can.
Of course, no one at DOJ wants the treatment that the State Department’s whistleblowers have endured. Nor does the public disparagement of Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, or Jim Comey suggest a pleasant path forward. The prospect of hiring a personal attorney, looking for another job, and having one’s name in the papers goes against every ounce of the invisible, under-the-radar existence that Justice lawyers enjoy.
Perhaps they are worried about reaching retirement. Perhaps they are concerned about their ability to find the next job in a town as small as Washington. Perhaps, they fear retribution to their families and livelihoods. That’s why it’s so important for the House to conduct swift oversight hearings—it could provide some cover for the attorney whistleblowers.
Two years ago, I self-published a piece on Medium in which I lauded the attorneys at DOJ whose professionalism and integrity I relied on to ensure that justice would prevail in the Trump era. I felt safer because I knew the type of high-caliber people, with strong values and a reverence for service, who tend to work for years and decades at the Department of Justice.
Two years later, I am feeling quite differently. I say this recognizing that I haven’t faced the same moral dilemma as these career attorneys; I left the Department before the Trump administration began.
But I believe there comes a point where keeping one’s head down becomes tantamount to keeping one’s head in the sand. In today’s America, that approach actually fails to serve the American people. If Justice attorneys turn their back on Trump’s and Barr’s corruption, they will undercut the integrity of the country they have spent their lives serving.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-12--The State of Georgia Is in Play

The State of Georgia Is in Play

Paul Waldman recently challenged the meme about Democrats being in disarray .
He made some great arguments , but a lot of it comes down to this .
People in politics suffer from a kind of myopia , in which what ’ s right in front of them , being in sharp focus , seems like the most important thing that has ever happened or will ever happen .
This Changes Everything , we say over and over , despite the fact that the last 10 or 15 events that were supposed to Change Everything turned out to be so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they were .
That is precisely why I ’ ve been pointing to events that will happen over the next nine months , but are being completely ignored in the myopia of the moment .
The 2008 meme about “ no drama Obama ” has been resonating for me lately .
That one emerged because the candidate worked in the moment , but refused to be consumed by the noise of the day—keeping his eye on the long game .
Stories that combat the Democrats in disarray notion abound if you dig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day the state of Virginia is reminding us of what happens when we elect Democrats .
While Trump constantly rails about the “ do-nothing Democrats , ” the House is about to vote on making Washington , DC the 51st state .
But in a story more directly tied to the 2020 elections , it is what ’ s happening in Georgia that caught my eye .
That state is not only significant because of the presidential race .
There are also three open House seats in play , along with both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 by about five points .
According to Morning Consult , his current net approval rating now stands at zero .
However , the big news coming out of Georgia is that , even as Republicans in that state lead the nation in purging voters , they can ’ t do so fast enough to keep up with new registrations .
A wave of people signed up to vote in Georgia last year , adding 322,000 active voters to the rolls ahead of a presidential election in an increasingly competitive state… There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Georgia , a 3 % increase in one year… About 68 % of Georgia ’ s 10.6 million residents are now registered to vote .
The number of new voters in Georgia has outpaced voter registration cancellations .
The demographics of those newly registered voters spells good news for Democrats .
The number of Georgia voters in the 18-34 age group has jumped 68 % since October 2016 , according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis of the state ’ s voter lists .
That group now makes up 31 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portion of the electorate that is white has fallen since 2016 .
White voters still make up a majority , accounting for 59 % of those who identified their race when registering , but that number slipped from 62 % four years ago .
A quick look at exit polls from Georgia in the 2016 election tells us why those numbers are so significant .
In the 18-34 age group , Clinton beat Trump by 36 points , while people of color gave Clinton a whopping 69 point edge .
As Scott Hogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party of Georgia , said : “ Georgia is in play .
The state is going to go blue .
It ’ s just a matter of when.
” That sounds an awful lot like what many of us have been saying about Texas , for the same reasons .
It also underscores the importance of the work people like Stacey Abrams and Eric Holder are doing to combat voter suppression .
The fate of the Democratic Party doesn ’ t just rest with winning back the Midwest , even though that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen with Virginia , the future of the party lies with turning states like Georgia and Texas blue .
It ’ s going to happen .
Whether it comes sooner or later could depend on what Democrats do to discard myopia and play the long game .

Paul Waldman recently challenged the meme about Democrats being in disarray. He made some great arguments, but a lot of it comes down to this.
People in politics suffer from a kind of myopia, in which what’s right in front of them, being in sharp focus, seems like the most important thing that has ever happened or will ever happen. This Changes Everything, we say over and over, despite the fact that the last 10 or 15 events that were supposed to Change Everything turned out to be so inconsequential that we’ve already forgotten what they were.
That is precisely why I’ve been pointing to events that will happen over the next nine months, but are being completely ignored in the myopia of the moment. The 2008 meme about “no drama Obama” has been resonating for me lately. That one emerged because the candidate worked in the moment, but refused to be consumed by the noise of the day—keeping his eye on the long game.
Stories that combat the Democrats in disarray notion abound if you dig deep enough. For example, almost every day the state of Virginia is reminding us of what happens when we elect Democrats. While Trump constantly rails about the “do-nothing Democrats,” the House is about to vote on making Washington, DC the 51st state.
But in a story more directly tied to the 2020 elections, it is what’s happening in Georgia that caught my eye. That state is not only significant because of the presidential race. There are also three open House seats in play, along with both Senate seats.
Donald Trump won Georgia in 2016 by about five points. According to Morning Consult, his current net approval rating now stands at zero. However, the big news coming out of Georgia is that, even as Republicans in that state lead the nation in purging voters, they can’t do so fast enough to keep up with new registrations.
A wave of people signed up to vote in Georgia last year, adding 322,000 active voters to the rolls ahead of a presidential election in an increasingly competitive state… There are now nearly 7.2 million registered voters in Georgia, a 3% increase in one year… About 68% of Georgia’s 10.6 million residents are now registered to vote. The number of new voters in Georgia has outpaced voter registration cancellations.
The demographics of those newly registered voters spells good news for Democrats.
The number of Georgia voters in the 18-34 age group has jumped 68% since October 2016, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis of the state’s voter lists. That group now makes up 31% of the state’s total… Meanwhile, the portion of the electorate that is white has fallen since 2016. White voters still make up a majority, accounting for 59% of those who identified their race when registering, but that number slipped from 62% four years ago.
A quick look at exit polls from Georgia in the 2016 election tells us why those numbers are so significant. In the 18-34 age group, Clinton beat Trump by 36 points, while people of color gave Clinton a whopping 69 point edge.
As Scott Hogan, the executive director of the Democratic Party of Georgia, said: “Georgia is in play. The state is going to go blue. It’s just a matter of when.” That sounds an awful lot like what many of us have been saying about Texas, for the same reasons. It also underscores the importance of the work people like Stacey Abrams and Eric Holder are doing to combat voter suppression.
The fate of the Democratic Party doesn’t just rest with winning back the Midwest, even though that is an important goal. Just as we’ve seen with Virginia, the future of the party lies with turning states like Georgia and Texas blue. It’s going to happen. Whether it comes sooner or later could depend on what Democrats do to discard myopia and play the long game.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-12--When Balance Comes at the Expense of the Truth

President Trump ’ s governance by lies and insults has shocked and distressed many Americans .
But his extremes are not an aberration .
They are the culmination of a long and sorry trend .
Politicians have been undermining the rationality of public debate with lies since the days of the Vietnam War .
That has left reporters wrestling with how to do their jobs effectively—especially in the face of officials lying and attacking journalists .
Professor Thomas E. Patterson , of Harvard ’ s Shorenstein Center on Media , Politics and Public Policy , has studied and documented the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Vietnam era to the present .
Patterson ’ s new book , How America Lost Its Mind , written just before the Ukraine scandal broke , is a concise “ must-read ” for those interested in the challenges political journalists face in 2020 .
Patterson ’ s foundational premise is the centrality of journalism to democracy .
He quotes Walter Lippman : “ The newspaper in all its literalness is the bible of democracy , the book out of which a people determines its conduct .
…It is the only book that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news media is still the bible of democracy , with people attending to it every day .
But as a result of the decline in newspaper readership , and because people are increasingly getting their news from TV , cable and digital sources , the “ bible , ” Patterson says , has been adulterated .
Those who follow the news are now faced with “ an ungodly blend of the silly and the serious , the reliable and the deceptive , the extraneous and the noteworthy.
” Most journalists share Patterson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of journalists , which found that 60 percent think that journalism is headed in the wrong direction .
Patterson identifies three patterns of failure in the media—and one of success .
The first he calls the entertainment virus , in which “ infotainment and sensationalism ” dominate .
Patterson castigates entertainment-driven media for pushing aside journalism ’ s core responsibility : to identify what is important and to write about it in an interesting way .
The second pattern of journalistic failure is an obsession with the political game .
A key feature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horse race coverage of elections—a focus on who is ahead , rather than on the merits of candidates and policies .
One result , Patterson notes , is more cynicism about politicians , for as a result of one-dimensional coverage , they seem to be concerned only with winning power .
Infotainment and an obsession with the political game now crowd out more important coverage of public policy issues and of the candidates ’ fitness for office .
As Patterson documented in his work on the 2016 election at the Shorenstein Center , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the horse race and controversies , while only 10 percent was of the policy issues ; reports on the candidates ’ fitness for office made up a mere seven percent of coverage .
What voters need to know for the voting booth is not who will win , but who should win , and why .
The third pattern of journalistic failure is what Patterson calls attack journalism .
Patterson has found that journalists in the current era are overwhelmingly negative in covering elections , with the shift to negativity beginning after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostile stories about all rival politicians , as well as their actions in and out of government .
In 2016 , for example , Patterson found that the coverage of Clinton ’ s and Trump ’ s fitness for office was equally and overwhelmingly negative : 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive .
This kind of negative “ bothsidesism ” has a hugely damaging effect on rational discourse .
The person whose behavior is actually worse is immunized by equal attacks on the rival .
Patterson currently sees this form of both-sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism .
At the same time , he expresses his ideal of a world in which journalists can say something equally good and bad about rival sides , both of whom he hopes are “ moderate.
” Therefore , he defines a pattern of journalistic success as : “ News that is balanced , relevant , and trustworthy.
” The astuteness of the rest of his analysis notwithstanding , Patterson ’ s idealization of “ balance ” is a big disappointment .
Ironically , he falls into the same trap of “ bothsidesism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high percentage of false statements made by extreme right- and left-wing news outlets , but fails to note that the right-wing outlets spewed false claims at double the rate of the left-wing ones .
Indeed , the Buzzfeed article he cites concludes that right-wing lying on Facebook “ helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump.
” The elephant in the room Patterson avoids mentioning in his desire to be “ balanced ” is a new and terrifying assault on reason : the repeated insistence that obvious falsehoods are true .
This assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a creation of Trump ’ s Republican party .
The “ both sides ” approach leads to such errors because the very idea of balance is muddled .
The political center is always changing .
Supporting gay marriage , for instance , was once considered an extreme position .
Further , there are situations in which one candidate is unfit for office—say , because of a record of corruption—while the other is clearly more fit .
The truth is often one-sided , and when it is , insisting on “ balance ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital information .
Perhaps an even deeper question : Why is the tug of “ balance ” and “ bothsidesism ” so strong that even Patterson gets pulled in ?
It probably comes somewhere from the impulse to give each side a chance to tell their side of the story .
But , by and large , there are two different kinds of claims in politics , and they require different methods for journalists to handle them effectively .
The first kind of claim is about specific events : what happened at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish the facts on specific events in the same way that facts about events are established in courts of law and in science : corroboration by multiple , credible witnesses .
And indeed , talking to people who are eyewitnesses to events is rightly the journalistic standard .
The second kind of claim is essentially the expression of a theory , i.e .
“ this policy will work better , ” or this “ candidate will perform better in office.
” The philosopher Karl Popper has noted that , within science , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and always might be refuted by new evidence .
This uncertainty is even greater for social theories and policies .
In the face of such difficulties , many journalists tend to avoid reporting on policy , and when they do , they .
report simply on what “ both sides ” say , without scrutinizing the truth or validity of their claims .
But it is possible for reporters to assess the veracity of theoretical claims without biasing themselves .
As Popper has also pointed out , scientists do this through the refutation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , there is often contrary evidence when a politician makes an unfounded claim about the promise of a flawed policy idea .
Indeed , a powerful alternative to “ bothsidesism ” is to identify crucial evidence—evidence that confirms one view , provisionally , while decisively contradicting a rival view .
Take economic policy .
Republicans have claimed that cutting taxes and domestic spending will best grow the economy , and the resulting prosperity will “ trickle down ’ ” to all .
Democrats have argued that increased taxes and wise public investments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slice it more equally .
When we sum up the evidence from Federal Reserve and Census Bureau numbers from 1982 to 2018 , it tells a story of stark Republican failure and modest Democratic success .
Under Republican administrations , middle incomes stagnated almost completely , rising only 0.1 percent on average annually , while poverty increased an average of 2.6 percent per year .
Under Democratic administrations , by contrast , middle incomes rose annually on average 1.3 percent and poverty declined 1.6 percent .
To be sure , most of Patterson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack journalism , and the obsession with the political game—would lead to better journalism in America .
Journalists should also stick to a simple prescription : Stop seeking balance at the expense of the truth .

President Trump’s governance by lies and insults has shocked and distressed many Americans. But his extremes are not an aberration. They are the culmination of a long and sorry trend. Politicians have been undermining the rationality of public debate with lies since the days of the Vietnam War. That has left reporters wrestling with how to do their jobs effectively—especially in the face of officials lying and attacking journalists.
How America Lost Its Mind: The Assault on Reason That’s Crippling Our Democracy by Thomas Patterson, University of Oklahoma Press, 208pp. How America Lost Its Mind: The Assault on Reason That’s Crippling Our Democracy by Thomas Patterson, University of Oklahoma Press, 208pp.
Professor Thomas E. Patterson, of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, has studied and documented the struggles of journalists in covering politics from the Vietnam era to the present. Patterson’s new book, How America Lost Its Mind, written just before the Ukraine scandal broke, is a concise “must-read” for those interested in the challenges political journalists face in 2020.
Patterson’s foundational premise is the centrality of journalism to democracy. He quotes Walter Lippman: “The newspaper in all its literalness is the bible of democracy, the book out of which a people determines its conduct. …It is the only book that they read every day.” Today the news media is still the bible of democracy, with people attending to it every day. But as a result of the decline in newspaper readership, and because people are increasingly getting their news from TV, cable and digital sources, the “bible,” Patterson says, has been adulterated. Those who follow the news are now faced with “an ungodly blend of the silly and the serious, the reliable and the deceptive, the extraneous and the noteworthy.” Most journalists share Patterson’s concern. He cites a survey of journalists, which found that 60 percent think that journalism is headed in the wrong direction.
Patterson identifies three patterns of failure in the media—and one of success. The first he calls the entertainment virus, in which “infotainment and sensationalism” dominate. Patterson castigates entertainment-driven media for pushing aside journalism’s core responsibility: to identify what is important and to write about it in an interesting way.
The second pattern of journalistic failure is an obsession with the political game. A key feature of this pattern is the dominance of horse race coverage of elections—a focus on who is ahead, rather than on the merits of candidates and policies. One result, Patterson notes, is more cynicism about politicians, for as a result of one-dimensional coverage, they seem to be concerned only with winning power.
Infotainment and an obsession with the political game now crowd out more important coverage of public policy issues and of the candidates’ fitness for office. As Patterson documented in his work on the 2016 election at the Shorenstein Center, nearly 60 percent of coverage was of the horse race and controversies, while only 10 percent was of the policy issues; reports on the candidates’ fitness for office made up a mere seven percent of coverage. What voters need to know for the voting booth is not who will win, but who should win, and why.
The third pattern of journalistic failure is what Patterson calls attack journalism. Patterson has found that journalists in the current era are overwhelmingly negative in covering elections, with the shift to negativity beginning after the Vietnam War. Reporters tend to write hostile stories about all rival politicians, as well as their actions in and out of government.
In 2016, for example, Patterson found that the coverage of Clinton’s and Trump’s fitness for office was equally and overwhelmingly negative: 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. This kind of negative “bothsidesism” has a hugely damaging effect on rational discourse. The person whose behavior is actually worse is immunized by equal attacks on the rival.
Patterson currently sees this form of both-sides negativity as the most pervasive failing in journalism. At the same time, he expresses his ideal of a world in which journalists can say something equally good and bad about rival sides, both of whom he hopes are “moderate.” Therefore, he defines a pattern of journalistic success as: “News that is balanced, relevant, and trustworthy.”
The astuteness of the rest of his analysis notwithstanding, Patterson’s idealization of “balance” is a big disappointment. Ironically, he falls into the same trap of “bothsidesism” he laments. He points to a high percentage of false statements made by extreme right- and left-wing news outlets, but fails to note that the right-wing outlets spewed false claims at double the rate of the left-wing ones. Indeed, the Buzzfeed article he cites concludes that right-wing lying on Facebook “helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump.” The elephant in the room Patterson avoids mentioning in his desire to be “balanced” is a new and terrifying assault on reason: the repeated insistence that obvious falsehoods are true. This assault is indeed an “elephant”—it is a creation of Trump’s Republican party.
The “both sides” approach leads to such errors because the very idea of balance is muddled. The political center is always changing. Supporting gay marriage, for instance, was once considered an extreme position. Further, there are situations in which one candidate is unfit for office—say, because of a record of corruption—while the other is clearly more fit. The truth is often one-sided, and when it is, insisting on “balance” will mean failure to provide voters with vital information.
Perhaps an even deeper question: Why is the tug of “balance” and “bothsidesism” so strong that even Patterson gets pulled in? It probably comes somewhere from the impulse to give each side a chance to tell their side of the story. But, by and large, there are two different kinds of claims in politics, and they require different methods for journalists to handle them effectively.
The first kind of claim is about specific events: what happened at a specific place and time. Reporters can establish the facts on specific events in the same way that facts about events are established in courts of law and in science: corroboration by multiple, credible witnesses. And indeed, talking to people who are eyewitnesses to events is rightly the journalistic standard.
The second kind of claim is essentially the expression of a theory, i.e. “this policy will work better,” or this “candidate will perform better in office.” The philosopher Karl Popper has noted that, within science, even the best-tested theories are never certain, and always might be refuted by new evidence. This uncertainty is even greater for social theories and policies. In the face of such difficulties, many journalists tend to avoid reporting on policy, and when they do, they. report simply on what “both sides” say, without scrutinizing the truth or validity of their claims.
But it is possible for reporters to assess the veracity of theoretical claims without biasing themselves. As Popper has also pointed out, scientists do this through the refutation of claims affecting the future. For instance, there is often contrary evidence when a politician makes an unfounded claim about the promise of a flawed policy idea.
Indeed, a powerful alternative to “bothsidesism” is to identify crucial evidence—evidence that confirms one view, provisionally, while decisively contradicting a rival view. Take economic policy. Republicans have claimed that cutting taxes and domestic spending will best grow the economy, and the resulting prosperity will “trickle down’” to all. Democrats have argued that increased taxes and wise public investments would both grow the economic pie and slice it more equally.
When we sum up the evidence from Federal Reserve and Census Bureau numbers from 1982 to 2018, it tells a story of stark Republican failure and modest Democratic success. Under Republican administrations, middle incomes stagnated almost completely, rising only 0.1 percent on average annually, while poverty increased an average of 2.6 percent per year. Under Democratic administrations, by contrast, middle incomes rose annually on average 1.3 percent and poverty declined 1.6 percent.
To be sure, most of Patterson’s proposed solutions—minimizing infotainment reporting, attack journalism, and the obsession with the political game—would lead to better journalism in America. Journalists should also stick to a simple prescription: Stop seeking balance at the expense of the truth.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-12--Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel?

It ’ s hard not to get discouraged .
Our government is so broken and the left is so behind the eight ball that it seems like any progress at all is permanently out of reach .
Even the rare glimmer of hope mainly serves to reinforce this sense of powerlessness .
For example , Congress came together last year to use the War Powers Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1973 .
The goal was to prevent the president from continuing to support Saudi Arabia in the civil war in Yemen .
While the resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vetoed the bill .
This week , Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia will bring a privileged resolution to the floor of the Senate .
The goal is “ to limit President Donald Trump ’ s authority to launch military operations against Iran ” by requiring the president to cease “ all hostilities targeting Iran within 30 days unless explicitly approved by Congress.
” The resolution appears to have the support of all 47 members of the Democratic caucus plus Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine , Todd Young of Indiana , Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky and Jerry Moran of Kansas .
That ’ s more than enough to pass the resolution but far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Trump ’ s inevitable veto .
It ’ s a rare example of congressional Republicans dealing Trump a defeat , as well as a rare instance of Congress trying to exert its powers against the Executive Branch .
But it ’ s not going to have any legal effect .
That doesn ’ t mean the effort is pointless , of course , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of hope .
It ’ s not surprising that good legislation doesn ’ t become law in the Trump administration , but not much would be different with a Democratic president .
If a bill could actually overcome a Republican filibuster , it would probably not be all that worthwhile .
If the bill somehow circumvented the filibuster and it was in any way transformative , it ’ s likely that the conservative courts would rule it unconstitutional .
This problem is so obvious that progressives are already demanding that the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court and demand that the Senate do away with the legislative filibuster .
If either of those things are not done , then there ’ s little chance that a President Sanders or a President Klobuchar or any Democratic president will be able to fulfill a single major campaign promise .
But it ’ s hard to see the Democratic Party as unified enough to accomplish this .
At least initially , there will be no majority in the Senate for gutting the filibuster , and everyone remembers how badly FDR was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
Maybe if the congressional Democrats see enough of their work product help up and stymied , they will come around .
But , by that time , the critical first year of a new president ’ s term will have passed and everyone will be worried about the midterms .
And , note that I am here assuming that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2020 and take full control of Congress .
If they don ’ t accomplish both of those things , then no legislative progress is even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really nothing to do but keep fighting , but it ’ s sometimes hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel .

It’s hard not to get discouraged. Our government is so broken and the left is so behind the eight ball that it seems like any progress at all is permanently out of reach. Even the rare glimmer of hope mainly serves to reinforce this sense of powerlessness.
For example, Congress came together last year to use the War Powers Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1973. The goal was to prevent the president from continuing to support Saudi Arabia in the civil war in Yemen. While the resolution passed with bipartisan support, Trump simply vetoed the bill.
This week, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia will bring a privileged resolution to the floor of the Senate. The goal is “to limit President Donald Trump’s authority to launch military operations against Iran” by requiring the president to cease “all hostilities targeting Iran within 30 days unless explicitly approved by Congress.” The resolution appears to have the support of all 47 members of the Democratic caucus plus Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jerry Moran of Kansas. That’s more than enough to pass the resolution but far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Trump’s inevitable veto.
It’s a rare example of congressional Republicans dealing Trump a defeat, as well as a rare instance of Congress trying to exert its powers against the Executive Branch. But it’s not going to have any legal effect.
That doesn’t mean the effort is pointless, of course, but it’s hard to find it as a source of hope.
It’s not surprising that good legislation doesn’t become law in the Trump administration, but not much would be different with a Democratic president. If a bill could actually overcome a Republican filibuster, it would probably not be all that worthwhile. If the bill somehow circumvented the filibuster and it was in any way transformative, it’s likely that the conservative courts would rule it unconstitutional. This problem is so obvious that progressives are already demanding that the next Democratic president increase the size of the Supreme Court and demand that the Senate do away with the legislative filibuster. If either of those things are not done, then there’s little chance that a President Sanders or a President Klobuchar or any Democratic president will be able to fulfill a single major campaign promise.
But it’s hard to see the Democratic Party as unified enough to accomplish this. At least initially, there will be no majority in the Senate for gutting the filibuster, and everyone remembers how badly FDR was hurt when he tried to stack the court. Maybe if the congressional Democrats see enough of their work product help up and stymied, they will come around. But, by that time, the critical first year of a new president’s term will have passed and everyone will be worried about the midterms.
And, note that I am here assuming that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2020 and take full control of Congress. If they don’t accomplish both of those things, then no legislative progress is even conceivable at all.
There’s really nothing to do but keep fighting, but it’s sometimes hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-13--Barr Corrupts the Justice Department in Service of a Tyrant

The news about how Attorney General William Barr is turning the Department of Justice into an entity designed to protect Donald Trump and punish his enemies is coming so fast that it ’ s been a bit overwhelming .
Some of us were still trying to absorb the fact that Barr had set up a process for Rudy Giuliani to feed his dirt on the Bidens directly into the Justice Department when things picked up speed on Tuesday .
As I noted previously , leadership at DOJ intervened to overrule the recommendation from front-line prosecutors in the sentencing of Roger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heels of Trump tweeting that the recommendation was unfair .
In response to that intervention , all four of the prosecutors involved resigned from the case .
After that , the news came at a furious pace .
We learned that : • Trump rescinded the nomination of Jessie Liu , who had been the U.S. attorney for Washington , D.C. , for a job as an undersecretary at the Treasury Department .
Liu had previously supervised the case against Roger Stone .
• Leadership at the Justice Department had also intervened last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Flynn from six months to probation .
• Attorney General William Barr has basically taken control of legal matters that are of personal interest to Trump .
That last one is the kicker and means that the whole idea of an independent attorney general has been flushed down the drain .
The president tweeted his pleasure at having finally found his own Roy Cohn to put in charge of the Justice Department .
Of course , most other observers were horrified .
To get an idea of just how serious all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response from a former DOJ Inspector General .
A former attorney general spoke out as well .
Meanwhile , Trump responded by attacking the four prosecutors who resigned and the judge who is hearing Stone ’ s case .
Those are not the actions of someone who has a well-thought-out political strategy .
Rather , they are the rantings of a president who knows that , not only have Senate Republicans given him free rein to do as he pleases , he also has an attorney general who is willing to weaponize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is impossible to overstate how dire this situation is at the moment .
I would simply remind you that Benjamin Wittes once wrote that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Justice Department .
William Barr has now placed that department in service to the narcissist-in-chief , who embodies a mob-like approach to vengeance as a means to establish dominance .
I ’ m not going to predict where all of this is likely to go .
But we already know that , in his so-called “ investigation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wipe the slate clean on Trump ’ s embrace of foreign interference in our elections , as well as his obstruction of justice .
In doing so , he is willing to discredit both the FBI and our intelligence services .
He is also using the Department of Justice to further the conspiracy theories Giuliani cooks up against Trump ’ s potential opponents .
Now he ’ s using his position to get Trump ’ s friends off the hook for their crimes while setting things up to prosecute dissenters .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same man who threatened that , if communities didn ’ t show enough respect for law enforcement , they could lose their police protection .
Even considering all of that , I suspect that William Barr is just getting started on his goal to establish Donald Trump as an all-powerful tyrant .
Mark my words , he will play a critical role in the upcoming election to both defend the president and punish anyone who gets in his way .

The news about how Attorney General William Barr is turning the Department of Justice into an entity designed to protect Donald Trump and punish his enemies is coming so fast that it’s been a bit overwhelming. Some of us were still trying to absorb the fact that Barr had set up a process for Rudy Giuliani to feed his dirt on the Bidens directly into the Justice Department when things picked up speed on Tuesday.
As I noted previously, leadership at DOJ intervened to overrule the recommendation from front-line prosecutors in the sentencing of Roger Stone. That came immediately on the heels of Trump tweeting that the recommendation was unfair. In response to that intervention, all four of the prosecutors involved resigned from the case. After that, the news came at a furious pace. We learned that:
Trump rescinded the nomination of Jessie Liu, who had been the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., for a job as an undersecretary at the Treasury Department. Liu had previously supervised the case against Roger Stone.
Leadership at the Justice Department had also intervened last month to reduce the sentencing recommendation for Michael Flynn from six months to probation.
Attorney General William Barr has basically taken control of legal matters that are of personal interest to Trump.
That last one is the kicker and means that the whole idea of an independent attorney general has been flushed down the drain. The president tweeted his pleasure at having finally found his own Roy Cohn to put in charge of the Justice Department.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227561237782855680
Of course, most other observers were horrified. To get an idea of just how serious all of this has become, here is the response from a former DOJ Inspector General.
A former attorney general spoke out as well.
Meanwhile, Trump responded by attacking the four prosecutors who resigned and the judge who is hearing Stone’s case. Those are not the actions of someone who has a well-thought-out political strategy. Rather, they are the rantings of a president who knows that, not only have Senate Republicans given him free rein to do as he pleases, he also has an attorney general who is willing to weaponize the entire Justice Department in his defense.
It is impossible to overstate how dire this situation is at the moment. I would simply remind you that Benjamin Wittes once wrote that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Justice Department. William Barr has now placed that department in service to the narcissist-in-chief, who embodies a mob-like approach to vengeance as a means to establish dominance.
I’m not going to predict where all of this is likely to go. But we already know that, in his so-called “investigation of the investigators,” Barr is working to wipe the slate clean on Trump’s embrace of foreign interference in our elections, as well as his obstruction of justice. In doing so, he is willing to discredit both the FBI and our intelligence services. He is also using the Department of Justice to further the conspiracy theories Giuliani cooks up against Trump’s potential opponents. Now he’s using his position to get Trump’s friends off the hook for their crimes while setting things up to prosecute dissenters. Let’s not forget that this is the same man who threatened that, if communities didn’t show enough respect for law enforcement, they could lose their police protection.
Even considering all of that, I suspect that William Barr is just getting started on his goal to establish Donald Trump as an all-powerful tyrant. Mark my words, he will play a critical role in the upcoming election to both defend the president and punish anyone who gets in his way.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-13--Trump Continues to Dismiss the Severity of Traumatic Brain Injuries

While serving as president , Donald Trump has told more than 16,241 lies , according to the Washington Post .
But one of them might be somewhat defensible .
That ’ s the lie that Iran ’ s retaliation against the United States for the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani did not cause any injuries .
Why is this falsehood more excusable than the others ?
It ’ s because there was a risk that if the truth were known about the over 100 troops who suffered traumatic brain injuries from the concussions of the missile attacks , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could have led to an ill-advised war that cost untold injuries and deaths .
Lying to save lives seems better than lying to cover up misdeeds .
The decision to kill Soleimani was impulsive and reckless , and probably a misdeed under international law .
But Trump was willing to allow Iran a face-saving gesture rather than using it as a pretext to escalate to full-out war .
So , while I can be a little forgiving of Trump for his desire to downplay the severity of Iran ’ s response , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can approve of the way he continues to minimize the impact on the wounded soldiers .
At first , after he learned that dozens of Americans had suffered traumatic brain injuries , he dismissed this as “ not very serious ” and said that some folks were experiencing “ headaches.
” But , even now that the number has exceeded 100 and more than twenty are still getting treatment , Trump continues to act like he doesn ’ t care .
In an interview with Fox Business on Monday , the president said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ were looking to do too much damage , because they knew what the consequences were going to be.
” “ I saw the missiles .
We saw them going … They landed in a way that they didn ’ t hit anybody , ” Trump told Fox Business ’ Trish Regan .
The president said that he “ stopped something that would have been very devastating for ” the Iranians , an apparent reference to US de-escalation in the aftermath of the attack .
“ And then a couple of weeks later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with trauma , head trauma , ” he said .
“ That exists .
But it ’ s , you know , I viewed it a little bit differently than most , and I won ’ t be changing my mind on that.
” Try to imagine any parent receiving a phone call and getting the news that their child has suffered a traumatic brain injury .
Then imagine that the president of the United States continually acted like this was not serious and nothing to be concerned about .
How would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ brain ” is coupled with the words “ traumatic ” and “ injury , ” that kind of says it all .
But obviously there are negative consequences , often severe and life-long .
I think it would be okay now that immediate risk of war with Iran has passed , for Trump to show a little worry about the health of the people he put in harm ’ s way .

While serving as president, Donald Trump has told more than 16,241 lies, according to the Washington Post. But one of them might be somewhat defensible. That’s the lie that Iran’s retaliation against the United States for the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani did not cause any injuries.
Why is this falsehood more excusable than the others? It’s because there was a risk that if the truth were known about the over 100 troops who suffered traumatic brain injuries from the concussions of the missile attacks, the public would clamor for retaliation. And that could have led to an ill-advised war that cost untold injuries and deaths.
Lying to save lives seems better than lying to cover up misdeeds. The decision to kill Soleimani was impulsive and reckless, and probably a misdeed under international law. But Trump was willing to allow Iran a face-saving gesture rather than using it as a pretext to escalate to full-out war.
So, while I can be a little forgiving of Trump for his desire to downplay the severity of Iran’s response, that doesn’t mean that I can approve of the way he continues to minimize the impact on the wounded soldiers. At first, after he learned that dozens of Americans had suffered traumatic brain injuries, he dismissed this as “not very serious” and said that some folks were experiencing “headaches.” But, even now that the number has exceeded 100 and more than twenty are still getting treatment, Trump continues to act like he doesn’t care.
In an interview with Fox Business on Monday, the president said he didn’t think the Iranians “were looking to do too much damage, because they knew what the consequences were going to be.” “I saw the missiles. We saw them going … They landed in a way that they didn’t hit anybody,” Trump told Fox Business’ Trish Regan. The president said that he “stopped something that would have been very devastating for” the Iranians, an apparent reference to US de-escalation in the aftermath of the attack. “And then a couple of weeks later I started hearing about people having to do with trauma, head trauma,” he said. “That exists. But it’s, you know, I viewed it a little bit differently than most, and I won’t be changing my mind on that.”
Try to imagine any parent receiving a phone call and getting the news that their child has suffered a traumatic brain injury. Then imagine that the president of the United States continually acted like this was not serious and nothing to be concerned about. How would that parent feel?
When the word “brain” is coupled with the words “traumatic” and “injury,” that kind of says it all. But obviously there are negative consequences, often severe and life-long. I think it would be okay now that immediate risk of war with Iran has passed, for Trump to show a little worry about the health of the people he put in harm’s way.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-13--Yovanovitch: ‘The State Department Is in Trouble’

While most of the news is currently focused on the fact that Attorney General William Barr has corrupted the Department of Justice , former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch made her first public remarks since her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee .
She warned that “ the State Department is in trouble , ” too .
Her remarks were captured by Cristina Cabrera .
“ Senior leaders lack policy vision , moral clarity and leadership skills , ” she continued .
“ The policy process has been replaced by decisions emanating from the top with little discussion.
” The diplomat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being hollowed out from within , ” its officers “ are increasingly wondering whether it is safe to express concerns about policy even behind closed doors.
” “ This is no time to undercut our diplomats , ” she warned .
Yovanovitch has already testified extensively to the lack of policy vision when it comes to Ukraine .
I was therefore struck by her reference to the lack of “ moral clarity and leadership skills , ” especially given that Secretary Pompeo posted his speech to the American Association of Christian Counselors titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the front page of the State Department ’ s web site .
The leadership Yovanovitch is criticizing has presented itself not just in moral terms , but as Christian .
Pompeo ’ s speech , along with its appearance on the web site , raised a host of concerns about the constitutional protections against the establishment of religion .
But in terms of content , the secretary is suggesting that he is a “ Christian leader , ” which sets up a moral compass by which he can be judged .
Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s. ” I want to use my time today to think about what it means to be a Christian leader , a Christian leader in three areas : First is disposition .
How is it that one carries oneself in the world ?
The second is dialogue , talking .
How is it that we engage with others around the world ?
And third is decisions , decisions that we make .
How do we make choices ?
Upon what basis ?
What do we use as our bedrock to get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disposition , Pompeo talked about humility and forgiveness .
He suggested that dialogue should be about listening and telling the truth .
Finally , he said that decisions should always be made based on your priorities .
All of that sounds good .
But we don ’ t have to look any further than the way in which Pompeo treated NPR ’ s Mary Louise Kelly to see that , when it comes to his actual behavior , he completely fails to walk his talk .
Interestingly enough , it was when Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marie Yovanovitch that he went off the rails—ending the interview before summoning Kelly to his office for an expletive-filled tirade .
The secretary then sought to humiliate Kelly by suggesting that she couldn ’ t find Ukraine on a map .
In the end , he issued a not-so-veiled threat .
“ He shouted at me for about the same amount of time as the [ 9-minute ] interview itself had lasted , ” Kelly told Shapiro .
“ He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine .
He asked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine ?
’ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.
” Pompeo then had a pop quiz for Kelly , a veteran national security correspondent who has reported from China , Russia and , most recently , Iran .
“ He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map ; I said yes , ” she continued .
“ He called out for his aides to bring him a map of the world with no writing , no countries marked .
I pointed to Ukraine .
He put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People will hear about this.
’ “ After Kelly went public about what happened , Pompeo released a statement in which he lied about her and barred NPR from sending a reporter to cover his trip to Ukraine .
According to people who have worked with Pompeo , this wasn ’ t an isolated incident .
So perhaps we can understand why Yovanovitch referred to a lack of moral clarity and leadership skills at the State Department .
It also helps to explain why current employees would be worried about expressing concerns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against anyone who doesn ’ t display complete loyalty obviously isn ’ t limited to the president and his attorney general .
Yovanovitch also referred to the hollowing out of the State Department , something that began with Secretary Tillerson and has obviously continued under Pompeo ’ s leadership .
The bigger picture we see from these incidents with the Departments of Justice and State is that the entire federal bureaucracy is in the process of being corrupted .
Many of us expected that to happen back when Trump began his presidency by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent their careers advocating against the very mission of the departments they were tasked with leading .
It appears that the worst offenders are those—like Pompeo , Barr , DeVos , and Perry—who are Christian nationalist ideologues .
Talking about the challenge of cleaning up the mess that Trump has made of the entire federal government isn ’ t the kind of inspirational message Democratic candidates want to emphasize on the campaign trail .
But voters should keep in mind that it will be the most critical task that awaits this president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @

While most of the news is currently focused on the fact that Attorney General William Barr has corrupted the Department of Justice, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch made her first public remarks since her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. She warned that “the State Department is in trouble,” too.
Her remarks were captured by Cristina Cabrera.
“Senior leaders lack policy vision, moral clarity and leadership skills,” she continued. “The policy process has been replaced by decisions emanating from the top with little discussion.” The diplomat said that as the department is “being hollowed out from within,” its officers “are increasingly wondering whether it is safe to express concerns about policy even behind closed doors.” “This is no time to undercut our diplomats,” she warned.
Yovanovitch has already testified extensively to the lack of policy vision when it comes to Ukraine. I was therefore struck by her reference to the lack of “moral clarity and leadership skills,” especially given that Secretary Pompeo posted his speech to the American Association of Christian Counselors titled, “Being a Christian Leader” on the front page of the State Department’s web site. The leadership Yovanovitch is criticizing has presented itself not just in moral terms, but as Christian.
Pompeo’s speech, along with its appearance on the web site, raised a host of concerns about the constitutional protections against the establishment of religion. But in terms of content, the secretary is suggesting that he is a “Christian leader,” which sets up a moral compass by which he can be judged.
Pompeo focused his remarks on three “d’s.”
I want to use my time today to think about what it means to be a Christian leader, a Christian leader in three areas: First is disposition. How is it that one carries oneself in the world? The second is dialogue, talking. How is it that we engage with others around the world? And third is decisions, decisions that we make. How do we make choices? Upon what basis? What do we use as our bedrock to get to those decisions?
When it comes to disposition, Pompeo talked about humility and forgiveness. He suggested that dialogue should be about listening and telling the truth. Finally, he said that decisions should always be made based on your priorities.
All of that sounds good. But we don’t have to look any further than the way in which Pompeo treated NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly to see that, when it comes to his actual behavior, he completely fails to walk his talk.
Interestingly enough, it was when Kelly asked Pompeo about his silence in defending Marie Yovanovitch that he went off the rails—ending the interview before summoning Kelly to his office for an expletive-filled tirade. The secretary then sought to humiliate Kelly by suggesting that she couldn’t find Ukraine on a map. In the end, he issued a not-so-veiled threat.
“He shouted at me for about the same amount of time as the [9-minute] interview itself had lasted,” Kelly told Shapiro. “He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine. He asked, ‘Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?’ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.” Pompeo then had a pop quiz for Kelly, a veteran national security correspondent who has reported from China, Russia and, most recently, Iran. “He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map; I said yes,” she continued. “He called out for his aides to bring him a map of the world with no writing, no countries marked. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away. He said, ‘People will hear about this.’ “
After Kelly went public about what happened, Pompeo released a statement in which he lied about her and barred NPR from sending a reporter to cover his trip to Ukraine.
According to people who have worked with Pompeo, this wasn’t an isolated incident. So perhaps we can understand why Yovanovitch referred to a lack of moral clarity and leadership skills at the State Department. It also helps to explain why current employees would be worried about expressing concerns, even behind closed doors. Seeking vengeance against anyone who doesn’t display complete loyalty obviously isn’t limited to the president and his attorney general.
Yovanovitch also referred to the hollowing out of the State Department, something that began with Secretary Tillerson and has obviously continued under Pompeo’s leadership.
The bigger picture we see from these incidents with the Departments of Justice and State is that the entire federal bureaucracy is in the process of being corrupted. Many of us expected that to happen back when Trump began his presidency by announcing members of his Cabinet who had spent their careers advocating against the very mission of the departments they were tasked with leading. It appears that the worst offenders are those—like Pompeo, Barr, DeVos, and Perry—who are Christian nationalist ideologues.
Talking about the challenge of cleaning up the mess that Trump has made of the entire federal government isn’t the kind of inspirational message Democratic candidates want to emphasize on the campaign trail. But voters should keep in mind that it will be the most critical task that awaits this president’s successor on day one.