powerlineblog--2020-12-31--More Evidence That Our Education System Is Completely Broken

The Council of Chief State School Officers hands out an annual , national “ Teacher of the Year ” award .
Last year it went to Rodney Robinson , a social studies teacher in Richmond , Virginia .
The publicity was all positive–that is , unless you understand what is going on : Robinson , a 19-year veteran of Richmond Public Schools , teaches at Virgie Binford Education Center , a school inside the Richmond Juvenile Justice Center .
CCSSO commended Robinson for creating “ a positive school culture by empowering his students – many of whom have experienced trauma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use their skills and voices to affect physical and policy changes at their school and in their communities.
” Robinson says he looking forward to helping lead a conversation about the students he calls “ the most vulnerable in society ” and how the nation can address the school-to-prison-pipeline that has pushed too many kids out of school .
“ This year I hope to be the voice for my students and all students who feel unseen , unheard , unappreciated and undervalued in America , ” Robinson said .
Some ( like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on teaching kids some facts , a scarce commodity in public schools these days , rather than being “ a voice for ” such students .
Today , Teacher of the Year Rodney Robinson is in the news , not for actually teaching his students anything , but for advocating violence against those with whom he disagrees politically : After many criticized his call to political violence , Robinson deleted his tweet and substituted one that characterized his tweet as a “ joke , ” even though it was obviously not funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complained about how “ conservative bots ” didn ’ t like his call to violence : If you think this is a freakish occurrence , you are out of touch .
The public schools are a cess pit of leftism , not infrequently including leftist incitement to violence .
This kind of thing is taught in our schools every day , all across America , in red states as well as blue states .
The public schools are dominated by the teachers ’ unions , all of which are hard-left .
Moreover , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing a horrible job of teaching our kids basic skills or imparting basic information .
At this point , I think it would be better if all public K-12 education in America were canceled , and all tax revenues supporting public schools were returned to parents to do with as they see fit .
The result could only be a massive improvement in our children ’ s education .

The Council of Chief State School Officers hands out an annual, national “Teacher of the Year” award. Last year it went to Rodney Robinson, a social studies teacher in Richmond, Virginia. The publicity was all positive–that is, unless you understand what is going on:
Robinson, a 19-year veteran of Richmond Public Schools, teaches at Virgie Binford Education Center, a school inside the Richmond Juvenile Justice Center. CCSSO commended Robinson for creating “a positive school culture by empowering his students – many of whom have experienced trauma – to become civically-minded social advocates who use their skills and voices to affect physical and policy changes at their school and in their communities.” Robinson says he looking forward to helping lead a conversation about the students he calls “the most vulnerable in society” and how the nation can address the school-to-prison-pipeline that has pushed too many kids out of school. “This year I hope to be the voice for my students and all students who feel unseen, unheard, unappreciated and undervalued in America,” Robinson said.
Some (like me) would say that Robinson should focus on teaching kids some facts, a scarce commodity in public schools these days, rather than being “a voice for” such students.
Today, Teacher of the Year Rodney Robinson is in the news, not for actually teaching his students anything, but for advocating violence against those with whom he disagrees politically:
After many criticized his call to political violence, Robinson deleted his tweet and substituted one that characterized his tweet as a “joke,” even though it was obviously not funny or intended to be funny, and complained about how “conservative bots” didn’t like his call to violence:
I made a Mitch McConnell joke today and the conservative bots are real angry. It’s funny because the joke was made early today and no one said a thing until I promoted black medical awareness. — Rodney Robinson (@RodRobinsonRVA) December 31, 2020
If you think this is a freakish occurrence, you are out of touch. The public schools are a cess pit of leftism, not infrequently including leftist incitement to violence. This kind of thing is taught in our schools every day, all across America, in red states as well as blue states. The public schools are dominated by the teachers’ unions, all of which are hard-left. Moreover, the public schools are generally incompetent, doing a horrible job of teaching our kids basic skills or imparting basic information.
At this point, I think it would be better if all public K-12 education in America were canceled, and all tax revenues supporting public schools were returned to parents to do with as they see fit. The result could only be a massive improvement in our children’s education.
Via InstaPundit.


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--China sentences coronavirus whistleblower to four years in jail

The Wuhan coronavirus took hold in China due to irresponsible behavior by the Chinese government and overtook the rest of the world due in significant part to that government ’ s suppression of information .
This is hands down the biggest scandal of 2020 and the probably the biggest of this century so far .
China ’ s treatment of Chinese who investigated what was happening in Wuhan is a scandal within a scandal .
The latest installment is the sentencing of journalist Zhang Zhan to four years in prison for her reporting on the virus .
The sentence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than three hours behind closed doors , is for “ picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
” Zhang traveled to Wuhan in February .
She filmed scenes from overwhelmed hospitals and locked-down neighborhoods , thereby providing a glimpse of the pandemic ’ s effects .
Her reports accused the government of suppressing the voices of regular citizens and failing to inform residents of the reality of the situation .
They contradicted the lies of state media .
The Chinese imprisoned Zhang in May .
In June , she began a hunger strike which apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been force fed via a tube .
The Washington Post reported on Zhang ’ s sentence on page 13 of its news section yesterday .
I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that it reported the story at all .
China is an evil empire and our main adversary in the world .
Yet , Joe Biden has been soft on China for decades .
Moreover , the Biden family was in bed with the Red Chinese .
Joe was the “ big guy ” behind the scenes .
Supposedly , Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to China .
That ’ s the party line , anyway , as parroted here , for example , by unprincipled pro-Biden shill Jennifer Rubin .
Biden may do so to some degree at a cosmetic level .
But that ’ s the most we should expect from the big guy .

The Wuhan coronavirus took hold in China due to irresponsible behavior by the Chinese government and overtook the rest of the world due in significant part to that government’s suppression of information. This is hands down the biggest scandal of 2020 and the probably the biggest of this century so far.
China’s treatment of Chinese who investigated what was happening in Wuhan is a scandal within a scandal. The latest installment is the sentencing of journalist Zhang Zhan to four years in prison for her reporting on the virus. The sentence, handed down after a trial of less than three hours behind closed doors, is for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
Zhang traveled to Wuhan in February. She filmed scenes from overwhelmed hospitals and locked-down neighborhoods, thereby providing a glimpse of the pandemic’s effects. Her reports accused the government of suppressing the voices of regular citizens and failing to inform residents of the reality of the situation. They contradicted the lies of state media.
The Chinese imprisoned Zhang in May. In June, she began a hunger strike which apparently continues to this day. She has been force fed via a tube.
The Washington Post reported on Zhang’s sentence on page 13 of its news section yesterday. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that it reported the story at all.
China is an evil empire and our main adversary in the world. Yet, Joe Biden has been soft on China for decades.
Moreover, the Biden family was in bed with the Red Chinese. Joe was the “big guy” behind the scenes.
Supposedly, Biden is now prepared to take a tough approach to China. That’s the party line, anyway, as parroted here, for example, by unprincipled pro-Biden shill Jennifer Rubin.
Biden may do so to some degree at a cosmetic level. But that’s the most we should expect from the big guy.


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--Crime and Violence Reign

Crime and Violence Reign

In many American cities , law enforcement is in a state of collapse .
A combination of anti-police activism , spineless politicians , and left-wing prosecutors has turned the streets over to violent criminals .
Yesterday in Manhattan , a gang of 25 to 50 “ youths ” attacked a vehicle stopped at a light : It is hard to understand why the driver of the car didn ’ t hit the gas .
The Daily Mail reports : The BMW was adorned with medical license plates , but that did nothing to deter the gang of brazen teens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scene , the teens had sped off .
No arrests have been made .
One witness said Torgovnick ’ s mother was ‘ shaking and in tears ’ .
‘ We were trapped , there was so much violence , I thought I was going to die , ’ she reportedly said .
Torgovnick says he has lived in New York all his life and could never have previously imagined such a scenario occurring on the streets of his home city .
Law enforcement , under continuous attack from Mayor DeBlasio , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of chaos , was nowhere in sight .
Then we have the weird events in Fife , Washington , a suburb of Tacoma .
A group of far-leftists has taken over a Travelodge motel and finally , at last word , are being cleared away by police .
I won ’ t try to summarize , but My Northwest has the story .
The Antifa-style activists have the usual delusions of grandeur : Much more at the link , but for now , this : Police Chief Pete Fisher is speaking now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today to remove the radicals .
… The chief also says they didn ’ t act because of a lack of staffing and if they made arrests , it ’ s not like the jails would take the suspects anyway .
If public officials , including prosecutors , have no problem with criminal violence , law enforcement is hopeless .
As a result of the left-wing social forces that have been unleashed this year , violence in our cities has skyrocketed .
Hans Bader has the numbers , relating specifically to murder : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local governments have become softer on crime .
In the 57 major cities for which data is available , the murder rate is up an average of 36.7 % .
Murder went up in 51 cities , and down in only six cities .
Murder is up 74.1 % in Seattle , 72.3 % in Minneapolis , 55.5 % in Chicago , 54.1 % in Boston , 39.2 % in New York , 34.5 % in St. Louis , and 30.4 % in Los Angeles .
This huge rise in murder occurred as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole became available to more murderers , and the death penalty stopped being used in most states .
Hans has chapter and verse at the link , but the bare numbers are eloquent .
If you go woke , you may or may not go broke , but you are far more likely to get shot .
Still , even worse than that is the lawless chaos that now governs the streets in many American cities .
I can ’ t explain why voters stand for it , but apparently the short answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a table I was saving for the Geek in Pictures of the changes in the number of murders—

In many American cities, law enforcement is in a state of collapse. A combination of anti-police activism, spineless politicians, and left-wing prosecutors has turned the streets over to violent criminals. Yesterday in Manhattan, a gang of 25 to 50 “youths” attacked a vehicle stopped at a light:
Another angle of the riotous youths swarming & attacking a driver in Manhattan after they shut down the road: pic.twitter.com/jovBSudcKf — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) December 30, 2020
It is hard to understand why the driver of the car didn’t hit the gas. The Daily Mail reports:
The BMW was adorned with medical license plates, but that did nothing to deter the gang of brazen teens. … By the time cops arrived at the scene, the teens had sped off. No arrests have been made. One witness said Torgovnick’s mother was ‘shaking and in tears’. ‘We were trapped, there was so much violence, I thought I was going to die,’ she reportedly said. Torgovnick says he has lived in New York all his life and could never have previously imagined such a scenario occurring on the streets of his home city.
Law enforcement, under continuous attack from Mayor DeBlasio, who apparently has no problem with this sort of chaos, was nowhere in sight.
Then we have the weird events in Fife, Washington, a suburb of Tacoma. A group of far-leftists has taken over a Travelodge motel and finally, at last word, are being cleared away by police. I won’t try to summarize, but My Northwest has the story.
The Antifa-style activists have the usual delusions of grandeur:
Our movement brought with it mental health workers, lawyers, service workers, medics, community organizers, and people who believe housing is a human right to defend our movement….the capitalists brought Nazis. Which side are you on? — Tacoma Housing Now (@TacHousing) December 30, 2020
Much more at the link, but for now, this:
Police Chief Pete Fisher is speaking now to explain why they’re acting today to remove the radicals. … The chief also says they didn’t act because of a lack of staffing and if they made arrests, it’s not like the jails would take the suspects anyway.
If public officials, including prosecutors, have no problem with criminal violence, law enforcement is hopeless.
As a result of the left-wing social forces that have been unleashed this year, violence in our cities has skyrocketed. Hans Bader has the numbers, relating specifically to murder:
Murders have skyrocketed this year, as local governments have become softer on crime. In the 57 major cities for which data is available, the murder rate is up an average of 36.7%. Murder went up in 51 cities, and down in only six cities. Murder is up 74.1% in Seattle, 72.3% in Minneapolis, 55.5% in Chicago, 54.1% in Boston, 39.2% in New York, 34.5% in St. Louis, and 30.4% in Los Angeles. This huge rise in murder occurred as progressive prosecutors became softer on crime, parole became available to more murderers, and the death penalty stopped being used in most states.
Hans has chapter and verse at the link, but the bare numbers are eloquent. If you go woke, you may or may not go broke, but you are far more likely to get shot. Still, even worse than that is the lawless chaos that now governs the streets in many American cities. I can’t explain why voters stand for it, but apparently the short answer is liberalism.
STEVE adds: Here’s a table I was saving for the Geek in Pictures of the changes in the number of murders—
Also—the New York Times thinks the Coronovirus caused the crime spike:


powerlineblog--2020-12-30--Inside the COVID Pork Bill

Inside the COVID Pork Bill

Did you know that today is National Bacon Day ?
I didn ’ t—but then I tend to think that every day is national bacon day .
Or at least ought to be .
Maybe when Homer Simpson is president .
In any case , our mind is on pork a lot at the moment because of the 5,593-page COVID relief and omnibus spending mashup Congress passed and President Trump reluctantly signed a couple days ago .
There was much attention given to $ 10 million designated for “ gender programs ” in Pakistan , which sounds like a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got curious to see if this is literally in the bill as described , and guess what mom ?
Here it is on page 1497 : There is no further description of the nature of these “ gender programs.
” Is it going to be Judith Butler-style intersectionality ?
( From the looks of things , they hardly need our help on this subject . )
That would be one way to get Pakistanis to hate us even more than they do already .
There ’ s been some explanation that women in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , unable to own or inherit property , or open their own bank accounts without the co-signature of their husbands .
Sort of like American women before 1970 , according to legend—a regular Handmaid ’ s Tale .
So I suppose this earmark may be intended to promote women ’ s equality in Pakistan .
Good luck with that .
How is it any of our business ?
I thought we are supposed to respect multicultural differences ?
I had read or heard somewhere that this part of the bill dealt with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designation appears in Division K , Titles IV and IX , the parts of the bill that fund the State Department ’ s “ international security assistance ” programs and “ emergency funding.
” Which isn ’ t exactly buying guns or providing training so our allies can help kill our enemies .
This appears separate from whatever the Pentagon may do under Division C of the bill , or the separate defense funding bill that Trump vetoed .
As you scroll through more of Division K , you discover a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ micromanaged by the State Department ( which means it was dreamed up by the State Department , and not by any member of Congress ) , and arguably much more egregious .
Like this item for Jordan : Okay , so Jordan is a steady ally , and a reasonable country by Middle East standards .
But why do American taxpayers need to fork over $ 845 million to support Jordan ’ s general operating budget ?
Aid for Sri Lanka comes with three pages of conditions such as : Apparently we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutter , but now need to provide the funds to refurbish it , but only so long as the crew is “ instructed in human rights.
” In other words , full employment for U.S. foreign service officers ( and their outside consultants ) .
Who at least won ’ t be able to fly first class : Well thank goodness for this .
( Assuming anyone believes this . )
Beyond the money involved and the presumption that the U.S. State Department should be trying to micromanage the governmental practices and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lever of U.S. aid , this bill is a good glimpse into how the bureaucracy runs our government .
All these neat programs , and the specific managerial language attached to them , are generated inside the agencies , and not by Congress , which merely rubber stamps this enormous program in the huge budget bills presented at the 11th hour every year .
It is doubtful there is ever much congressional oversight or deliberation about these programs and targeted spending categories .
This is the administrative state in action—a government that @ @ @ @

Did you know that today is National Bacon Day? I didn’t—but then I tend to think that every day is national bacon day. Or at least ought to be. Maybe when Homer Simpson is president.
In any case, our mind is on pork a lot at the moment because of the 5,593-page COVID relief and omnibus spending mashup Congress passed and President Trump reluctantly signed a couple days ago. There was much attention given to $10 million designated for “gender programs” in Pakistan, which sounds like a bad joke of some kind, but I got curious to see if this is literally in the bill as described, and guess what mom? Here it is on page 1497:
There is no further description of the nature of these “gender programs.” Is it going to be Judith Butler-style intersectionality? (From the looks of things, they hardly need our help on this subject.) That would be one way to get Pakistanis to hate us even more than they do already. There’s been some explanation that women in Pakistan are second-class citizens (at best), unable to own or inherit property, or open their own bank accounts without the co-signature of their husbands. Sort of like American women before 1970, according to legend—a regular Handmaid’s Tale. So I suppose this earmark may be intended to promote women’s equality in Pakistan. Good luck with that. How is it any of our business? I thought we are supposed to respect multicultural differences?
I had read or heard somewhere that this part of the bill dealt with military assistance, but in fact this designation appears in Division K, Titles IV and IX, the parts of the bill that fund the State Department’s “international security assistance” programs and “emergency funding.” Which isn’t exactly buying guns or providing training so our allies can help kill our enemies. This appears separate from whatever the Pentagon may do under Division C of the bill, or the separate defense funding bill that Trump vetoed.
As you scroll through more of Division K, you discover a lot of foreign aid, much of it highly micromanaged by the State Department (which means it was dreamed up by the State Department, and not by any member of Congress), and arguably much more egregious. Like this item for Jordan:
Okay, so Jordan is a steady ally, and a reasonable country by Middle East standards. But why do American taxpayers need to fork over $845 million to support Jordan’s general operating budget?
Aid for Sri Lanka comes with three pages of conditions such as:
Apparently we have given Sri Lanka an old Coast Guard cutter, but now need to provide the funds to refurbish it, but only so long as the crew is “instructed in human rights.” In other words, full employment for U.S. foreign service officers (and their outside consultants). Who at least won’t be able to fly first class:
Well thank goodness for this. (Assuming anyone believes this.)
Beyond the money involved and the presumption that the U.S. State Department should be trying to micromanage the governmental practices and social conditions of so many other countries with the lever of U.S. aid, this bill is a good glimpse into how the bureaucracy runs our government. All these neat programs, and the specific managerial language attached to them, are generated inside the agencies, and not by Congress, which merely rubber stamps this enormous program in the huge budget bills presented at the 11th hour every year. It is doubtful there is ever much congressional oversight or deliberation about these programs and targeted spending categories. This is the administrative state in action—a government that runs of itself.


powerlineblog--2020-12-30--Another depressing report from Georgia

Another depressing report from Georgia

Yesterday , I posted a report by a well-placed Republican source about the run-off elections in Georgia , his home state .
I followed up with my source by asking two questions .
First , are the attacks on Raphael Warnock ’ s leftism and the scandalous way he ran a camp resonating ?
Second , is the controversy over the stimulus bill a factor in the race ?
My source graciously answered both questions and provided a summation of the race , as he sees it : On Warnock ’ s leftism , no it ’ s not resonating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ radical ” have been thrown around so often over the last few years , they have lost their bite .
In my view , the campaigns and PACs are running an “ inside baseball ” campaign with messaging so specific ( “ court packing ” and other terms most voters don ’ t even understand ) that voters don ’ t know which way is up .
Also , Warnock is warm and likable in his 30 second commercials .
They literally have a commercial about how he loves puppies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone you think looks nice as Fidel Castro .
The camp , his ex-wife on video saying he ’ s a good actor , etc , are all likely washed out by the media ’ s refusal to cover them .
They are breathlessly obsessed over whether Loeffler will call Biden “ President Elect ” , and not concerned with Warnock ’ s scandals and America-hating ideology .
Georgia has the highest black population in the country at 32 % , so identity politics is also alive and well .
Ossoff has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well spoken , but he also comes off as smug to me and others I have talked to .
Perdue , for some reason , refused to debate him , so a few weeks ago Ossoff debated an empty podium—a strategic blunder in my view .
On my way to work this morning , I heard a fresh commercial about Warnock supporting stimulus and Loeffler “ refusing to take a stand ” , so it ’ s getting out there , but hard to know what ’ s getting traction at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highways saying “ Loeffler and Perdue stole from you and your family ” referring to stimulus .
In the end , I think Georgia is a 50/50 state right now after massive population growth over the past 10 years .
We know in 2018 those who had moved here in the previous 5 years voted 2-1 for Abrams .
We have an absurdly generous film tax credit here , where we pay Hollywood 30 cents on the dollar to make movies here , and these policies , along with failing economies in blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , in a 50/50 state where some percentage of Republicans are refusing to vote because they think their vote won ’ t count , it ’ s not hard to figure out what will happen .

Yesterday, I posted a report by a well-placed Republican source about the run-off elections in Georgia, his home state. I followed up with my source by asking two questions. First, are the attacks on Raphael Warnock’s leftism and the scandalous way he ran a camp resonating? Second, is the controversy over the stimulus bill a factor in the race?
My source graciously answered both questions and provided a summation of the race, as he sees it:
Warnock
On Warnock’s leftism, no it’s not resonating. I think the term “socialist” and “radical” have been thrown around so often over the last few years, they have lost their bite. In my view, the campaigns and PACs are running an “inside baseball” campaign with messaging so specific (“court packing” and other terms most voters don’t even understand) that voters don’t know which way is up.
Also, Warnock is warm and likable in his 30 second commercials. They literally have a commercial about how he loves puppies. It’s hard to label someone you think looks nice as Fidel Castro.
The camp, his ex-wife on video saying he’s a good actor, etc, are all likely washed out by the media’s refusal to cover them. They are breathlessly obsessed over whether Loeffler will call Biden “President Elect”, and not concerned with Warnock’s scandals and America-hating ideology.
Georgia has the highest black population in the country at 32%, so identity politics is also alive and well. Ossoff has a level of talent in that he is well spoken, but he also comes off as smug to me and others I have talked to. Perdue, for some reason, refused to debate him, so a few weeks ago Ossoff debated an empty podium—a strategic blunder in my view.
Stimulus
On my way to work this morning, I heard a fresh commercial about Warnock supporting stimulus and Loeffler “refusing to take a stand”, so it’s getting out there, but hard to know what’s getting traction at this point. There are also billboards on the highways saying “Loeffler and Perdue stole from you and your family” referring to stimulus.
Summation
In the end, I think Georgia is a 50/50 state right now after massive population growth over the past 10 years. We know in 2018 those who had moved here in the previous 5 years voted 2-1 for Abrams.
We have an absurdly generous film tax credit here, where we pay Hollywood 30 cents on the dollar to make movies here, and these policies, along with failing economies in blue states, have caused significant population growth. So, in a 50/50 state where some percentage of Republicans are refusing to vote because they think their vote won’t count, it’s not hard to figure out what will happen.


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--A Much-Needed Dose of Optimism

A Much-Needed Dose of Optimism

Guest hosting on the Dan Proft Show yesterday , one of my guests was Dr. Joel Zinberg .
Zinberg is @ @ @ @ @ lawyer .
He is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and an Associate @ @ @ @ @ the Mount Sinai School of Medicine .
He was General Counsel and a Senior Economist @ @ @ @ @ Advisers from 2017 to 2019 .
We talked about his City Journal article , “ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and generally about the rapidly-improving covid landscape , as well as the incoming @ @ @ @ @ the interview ; I think it is worth your while :

Guest hosting on the Dan Proft Show yesterday, one of my guests was Dr. Joel Zinberg. Zinberg is both a doctor and a lawyer. He is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and an Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. He was General Counsel and a Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers from 2017 to 2019.
We talked about his City Journal article, “A Path to Better Days,” and generally about the rapidly-improving covid landscape, as well as the incoming Biden administration. Here is the interview; I think it is worth your while:


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--New Years News You Can Use—In Pics!

New Years News You Can Use—In Pics!

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--A year in reading

A year in reading

I always look forward to Tevi Troy ’ s annual summary of his year in reading .
This year ’ s edition is here .
Tevi read 80 books this year which puts me to shame .
Among his favorites are Amity Shlaes ’ s Great Society , about the miscalculations and misguided ideas behind the War on Poverty in the 1960s ; Craig Fehrman ’ s Author in Chief , about our presidents as writers , but also a history of the evolution of the written word in American life ; and America in the World , Robert Zoellick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the baseball front , there ’ s Jon Pessah ’ s Yogi : A Life Behind the Mask .
Tevi ’ s book Fight House ranks very high on my list of 2020 favorites .
It ’ s a history of White House infighting from the Truman administration through Obama ’ s .
I reviewed it here .
Another favorite , Robert Novak ’ s The Prince of Darkness , covers some of the same territory .
I received a free copy of the book at an event in which Novak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
I never intended to read it because Novak was not my cup of tea .
His “ you ’ re a source or you ’ re a target ” journalism left too much collateral damage and too much room for distortion .
But this year , it was difficult for me to get my hands on books , given the pandemic and my unwillingness to buy from Amazon .
So I turned to books that had been sitting unread on my bookshelves for years .
I ’ m glad I read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a bad guy , but bad guys often have good insights , especially if they are around as long as Novak was , and work as hard .
Novak ’ s insights into the presidents he covered — from JFK to Obama — are well supported by the first-hand evidence he supplies .
Only Ronald Reagan comes off well .
Jimmy Carter comes off worst .
Novak has plenty to say about his fellow D.C. journalists , too .
Here , we must allow for the possibility of score settling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Novak seems to be mostly on the mark , at least directionally .
John McLaughlin probably comes off worst among the media personalities he discusses .
In the end , Novak ’ s book tends to confirm Michael Barone ’ s hierarchy of the integrity of the three professions he has worked in : lawyer , political consultant , and journalist in that descending order .
Bad guys tend not to be insightful when discussing themselves , but that ’ s not really the case in Novak ’ s autobiography .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some his shortcomings and weaknesses in the book .
Others can easily be inferred .
This means that Novak ’ s book works not only as a kind of political history of 50 years , but also as an autobiography .

I always look forward to Tevi Troy’s annual summary of his year in reading. This year’s edition is here.
Tevi has read 80 books since the onset of the pandemic, which puts me to shame. Among his favorites are Amity Shlaes’s Great Society, about the miscalculations and misguided ideas behind the War on Poverty in the 1960s; Craig Fehrman’s Author in Chief, about our presidents as writers, but also a history of the evolution of the written word in American life; and America in the World, Robert Zoellick’s history of American foreign policy. On the baseball front, there’s Jon Pessah’s Yogi: A Life Behind the Mask.
Tevi’s book Fight House ranks very high on my list of 2020 favorites. It’s a history of White House infighting from the Truman administration through Obama’s. I reviewed it here.
Another favorite, Robert Novak’s The Prince of Darkness, covers some of the same territory. I received a free copy of the book at an event in which Novak and I participated more than a decade ago. I never intended to read it because Novak was not my cup of tea. His “you’re a source or you’re a target” journalism left too much collateral damage and too much room for distortion.
But this year, it was difficult for me to get my hands on books, given the pandemic and my unwillingness to buy from Amazon. So I turned to books that had been sitting unread on my bookshelves for years.
I’m glad I read Novak’s autobiography. Novak might have been a bad guy, but bad guys often have good insights, especially if they are around as long as Novak was, and work as hard.
Novak’s insights into the presidents he covered — from JFK to Obama — are well supported by the first-hand evidence he supplies. Only Ronald Reagan comes off well. Jimmy Carter comes off worst.
Novak has plenty to say about his fellow D.C. journalists, too. Here, we must allow for the possibility of score settling and perhaps even jealousy. Again, though, Novak seems to be mostly on the mark, at least directionally. John McLaughlin probably comes off worst among the media personalities he discusses.
In the end, Novak’s book tends to confirm Michael Barone’s hierarchy of the integrity of the three professions he has worked in: lawyer, political consultant, and journalist in that descending order.
Bad guys tend not to be insightful when discussing themselves, but that’s not really the case in Novak’s autobiography. A seriously flawed man, Novak confesses to some his shortcomings and weaknesses in the book. Others can easily be inferred.
This means that Novak’s book works not only as a kind of political history of 50 years, but also as an autobiography.


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--The Geek in Pictures: Year-End Roundup

The Geek in Pictures: Year-End Roundup

Time for another round of miscellaneous charts and graphs that do a lot of work .
First up , more embarrassing news for California and New York ( with a side order of Illinois ) .
I wonder what these states have in common ?
It ’ s a total mystery .
This said , consumer confidence isn ’ t looking so good : Way back in 1980 , Congress actually passed something called the “ Paperwork Reduction Act.
” It worked so well that Congress has passed two more “ Paperwork Reduction Acts ” since then .
Judging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just passed , Congress isn ’ t in the paperwork reduction spirit .
Trump is being reckless with his pardons !
Oh , wait : Mexico , with ample oil and gas reserves , seems to be following Venezuela ’ s track : So we ’ re supposedly going to all-electric cars in the next 15 years .
I wonder if that edict will apply to pickup trucks , too : Remember : Trump is against science , and only favors fossil fuels !
This decline in population growth is driven by falling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US fertility rate : Bonus : If you have 15 minutes to kill , this side-by-side comparison of “ Zero Hour ” and the parody it inspired—the great “ Airplane ” —is totally worth it .

Time for another round of miscellaneous charts and graphs that do a lot of work.
First up, more embarrassing news for California and New York (with a side order of Illinois). I wonder what these states have in common? It’s a total mystery.
Who needs rent control?
This said, consumer confidence isn’t looking so good:
Way back in 1980, Congress actually passed something called the “Paperwork Reduction Act.” It worked so well that Congress has passed two more “Paperwork Reduction Acts” since then. Judging from the COVID relief and omnibus spending mashup just passed, Congress isn’t in the paperwork reduction spirit.
Trump is being reckless with his pardons! Oh, wait:
Mexico, with ample oil and gas reserves, seems to be following Venezuela’s track:
So we’re supposedly going to all-electric cars in the next 15 years. I wonder if that edict will apply to pickup trucks, too:
Interesting graphic of news cycles in 2020:
Remember: Trump is against science, and only favors fossil fuels!
Meanwhile:
This decline in population growth is driven by falling illegal immigration and a decline in the US fertility rate:
Bonus: If you have 15 minutes to kill, this side-by-side comparison of “Zero Hour” and the parody it inspired—the great “Airplane”—is totally worth it.


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--“You only Fang twice”

“You only Fang twice”


powerlineblog--2020-12-31--Coronavirus in one state (146)

Coronavirus in one state (146)

The Minnesota Department of Health held its first and only press briefing of the week yesterday morning .
It was also the last briefing of 2020 .
It is difficult to overstate the servility and compliance of the press in toeing the lines peddled by MDH throughout the epidemic .
Yesterday ’ s briefing serves as a good example .
One would have to be a fool to miss the obvious fact that the virus has waxed and waned on its own rhythm regardless of the various approaches imposed ( or not ) by the authorities .
Governor Walz imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other side of the current wave .
Kevin Roche made the case in his December 1 Star Tribune column when the issue was in doubt , but he knew what he was talking about .
Kevin ’ s hypothesis is now confirmed by all the relevant data .
Minnesota Public Radio includes several graphs depicting the recession of the Minnesota wave in its current update .
The same pattern obtains in North Dakota , South Dakota , Iowa , and Wisconsin .
One has to adopt a willfully obtuse attitude to resist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face .
At about 34:00 of the briefing CBS Minnesota ’ s Marielle Mohs asked whether the authorities might not be able to reduce the “ current restrictions ” in light of the data .
According to Commissioner Malcolm , the answer is no , although her answer was neither that direct nor that brief .
That was the only question on the topic .
Neither Mohs nor any other reporter followed up .
At about 38:45 Star Tribune editorial writer Jill Burcum posed a question in a vehement tone .
She asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by state Rep. Mary Franson that I wrote about in part 145 .
Rep. Franson has appeared on FOX News with state Senator Scott Jensen to discuss the analysis suggesting some deaths are misattributed to the disease .
Without naming Franson or Jensen , Burcum sounds angry about their cable appearances this week .
They seem to have committed an offense against majesty .
Malcolm , Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann , and state epidemiologist Ruth Lynfield all respond that they are following CDC guidance in classifying deaths .
In my own exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commented to me : “ What I find very interesting — not one [ member of the ] MN mainstream media has reached out to me .
Not .
One.
” I have texted Rep. Franson to confirm that this observation applies to Burcum .
I have emailed Burcum to ask as well .
I will update this post with their responses when received .
UPDATE : I spoke with Rep. Franson this morning .
She is not difficult to reach .
Her contact information is posted on her state legislative page .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact her this past Sunday .
I understand from Rep. Franson that additional information was sought from her via a Twitter thread including Burcum following the briefing .
As of mid-morning Burcum herself has not responded to my email inquiry .
NOTE for Minnesota readers : Much of the briefing was devoted to the rollout of the vaccine in Minnesota .
Following the briefing MDH posted a vaccine update with related guidance/resources summarizing the information here .

The Minnesota Department of Health held its first and only press briefing of the week yesterday morning. It was also the last briefing of 2020. It is difficult to overstate the servility and compliance of the press in toeing the lines peddled by MDH throughout the epidemic. Yesterday’s briefing serves as a good example.
One would have to be a fool to miss the obvious fact that the virus has waxed and waned on its own rhythm regardless of the various approaches imposed (or not) by the authorities. Governor Walz imposed the current lockdown regime as we reached the other side of the current wave. Kevin Roche made the case in his December 1 Star Tribune column when the issue was in doubt, but he knew what he was talking about.
Kevin’s hypothesis is now confirmed by all the relevant data. Minnesota Public Radio includes several graphs depicting the recession of the Minnesota wave in its current update. The same pattern obtains in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. One has to adopt a willfully obtuse attitude to resist the conclusion that stares us in the face.
At about 34:00 of the briefing CBS Minnesota’s Marielle Mohs asked whether the authorities might not be able to reduce the “current restrictions” in light of the data. According to Commissioner Malcolm, the answer is no, although her answer was neither that direct nor that brief. That was the only question on the topic. Neither Mohs nor any other reporter followed up.
At about 38:45 Star Tribune editorial writer Jill Burcum posed a question in a vehement tone. She asked about the analysis of death data compiled by state Rep. Mary Franson that I wrote about in part 145. Rep. Franson has appeared on FOX News with state Senator Scott Jensen to discuss the analysis suggesting some deaths are misattributed to the disease. Without naming Franson or Jensen, Burcum sounds angry about their cable appearances this week. They seem to have committed an offense against majesty. Malcolm, Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann, and state epidemiologist Ruth Lynfield all respond that they are following CDC guidance in classifying deaths.
In my own exchange with her on Sunday morning Rep. Franson commented to me: “What I find very interesting — not one [member of the] MN mainstream media has reached out to me. Not. One.” I have texted Rep. Franson to confirm that this observation applies to Burcum. I have emailed Burcum to ask as well. I will update this post with their responses when received.
UPDATE: I spoke with Rep. Franson this morning. She is not difficult to reach. Her contact information is posted on her state legislative page. That is how I was able to contact her this past Sunday. I understand from Rep. Franson that additional information was sought from her via a Twitter thread including Burcum following the briefing. As of mid-morning Burcum herself has not responded to my email inquiry.
UPDATE (January 2): Jill Burcum has responded to my inquiry: “My apologies for the delayed response. No, [my] inquiry [was] not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health. For example, on Wednesday I asked Rep. Franson for additional information [via Twitter]. I have yet to hear back from her.”
NOTE for Minnesota readers: Much of the briefing was devoted to the rollout of the vaccine in Minnesota. Following the briefing MDH posted a vaccine update with related guidance/resources summarizing the information here.


CNN’s Priorities

Good to see that CNN has its news priorities straight ( so to speak ) .
With the coronavirus threatening @ @ @ @ @ epidemic potentially on the scale of the Spanish influenza of 100 years ago , here @ @ @ @ @ is important to report : File it under “ Why Decent Americans Hate the News @ @ @ @ @ Chaser : Why does CNN make it so easy for Trump ?
Is he secretly @ @ @ @ @ s a theory I ’ m willing to believe .

Good to see that CNN has its news priorities straight (so to speak). With the coronavirus threatening to become a serious worldwide epidemic potentially on the scale of the Spanish influenza of 100 years ago, here’s what CNN thinks is important to report:
File it under “Why Decent Americans Hate the News Media, Chapter 12,186.”
Chaser: Why does CNN make it so easy for Trump? Is he secretly paying them? It’s a theory I’m willing to believe.


Carter Page Sues

Carter Page , the most innocent man in America , has begun suing those who conspired to have him unlawfully spied upon for a year or more : The lawsuit is venued in the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois .
More defendants are likely to be added : “ This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied , ” attorney John Pierce said Thursday .
“ Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state.
” He added : “ This is only the first salvo .
We will follow the evidence wherever it leads , no matter how high .
… The rule of law will prevail.
” The essence of the Complaint : The suit states : “ Defendants leveraged these fabrications within the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( ‘ FBI ’ ) and the United States Department of Justice ( ‘ DOJ ’ ) , leading these agencies to present false applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( ‘ FISC ’ ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wrongfully and covertly surveilled ” and “ has seen his reputation ruined and his personal safety threatened.
” Does Page have a good case ?
In a sane world , he certainly has a good case against someone .
That he was wronged is indisputable .
However , the DNC and Perkins Coie will say that they innocently hired Fusion GPS , a reputable research firm , to look into possible connections between Donald Trump and Russians .
They will deny , obviously , that they knew that Christopher Steele , hired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabricated lies about Carter Page .
Page could sue Steele , except that Steele is in England and has made it clear that he doesn ’ t plan to visit the U.S. , ever again .
Nearly all potential defendants other than Steele–Comey , Clapper , McCabe and the like–would try to erect a firewall by denying any knowledge that the Steele dossier was a fraud .
Whether such guilty knowledge could be proved is doubtful .
At a minimum , Page will have to get far enough to conduct meaningful discovery against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s or Perkins Coie ’ s emails contain evidence of a conspiracy to lie about Carter Page , for the purpose of damaging Donald Trump ?
Who knows ?
If the participants were careful , they don ’ t ; then again , those who were talking to each other in 2016 and 2017 probably didn ’ t foresee that their actions might one day be exposed in court .
So perhaps they were careless .
Maybe , too , any such communications were deleted or destroyed long ago .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above analysis–the DOJ lawyer who misrepresented a CIA email to the FISA court .
The email said that Carter Page was a CIA asset .
The lawyer changed it to say that Page was not a CIA asset .
That guy , who has been fired and I assume will be criminally prosecuted , has no defense other than causation .
He likely would argue that he was just a cog in a giant wheel of lies , and that Page would have been equally defamed , surveilled and harassed even if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email .
Which undoubtedly is true , although it is questionable as a defense .
What Carter Page is doing is noble .
Let ’ s hope he succeeds in shedding light on the biggest political scandal , by far , in American history .
Finally , a fun fact : Page is represented by the same lawyers who are representing Tulsi Gabbard in her defamation case against Hillary Clinton , who called Gabbard a Russian asset .
Which , of course , is what she and her minions also called Carter Page @ @ @ @ @ @

Carter Page, the most innocent man in America, has begun suing those who conspired to have him unlawfully spied upon for a year or more:
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court against the Democratic National Committee, law firm Perkins Coie and its partners tied to the funding of the unverified dossier that served as the basis for highly controversial surveillance warrants against him.
The lawsuit is venued in the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois. More defendants are likely to be added:
“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” attorney John Pierce said Thursday. “Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state.” He added: “This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high. … The rule of law will prevail.”
The essence of the Complaint:
The suit states: “Defendants leveraged these fabrications within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’) and the United States Department of Justice (‘DOJ’), leading these agencies to present false applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (‘FISC’).” The suit alleges Page was then “wrongfully and covertly surveilled” and “has seen his reputation ruined and his personal safety threatened.”
Does Page have a good case? In a sane world, he certainly has a good case against someone. That he was wronged is indisputable. However, the DNC and Perkins Coie will say that they innocently hired Fusion GPS, a reputable research firm, to look into possible connections between Donald Trump and Russians. They will deny, obviously, that they knew that Christopher Steele, hired in turn by Fusion GPS, simply fabricated lies about Carter Page.
Page could sue Steele, except that Steele is in England and has made it clear that he doesn’t plan to visit the U.S., ever again. Nearly all potential defendants other than Steele–Comey, Clapper, McCabe and the like–would try to erect a firewall by denying any knowledge that the Steele dossier was a fraud.
Whether such guilty knowledge could be proved is doubtful. At a minimum, Page will have to get far enough to conduct meaningful discovery against the existing defendants. Do the DNC’s or Perkins Coie’s emails contain evidence of a conspiracy to lie about Carter Page, for the purpose of damaging Donald Trump? Who knows? If the participants were careful, they don’t; then again, those who were talking to each other in 2016 and 2017 probably didn’t foresee that their actions might one day be exposed in court. So perhaps they were careless. Maybe, too, any such communications were deleted or destroyed long ago.
There is at least one obvious exception to the above analysis–the DOJ lawyer who misrepresented a CIA email to the FISA court. The email said that Carter Page was a CIA asset. The lawyer changed it to say that Page was not a CIA asset. That guy, who has been fired and I assume will be criminally prosecuted, has no defense other than causation. He likely would argue that he was just a cog in a giant wheel of lies, and that Page would have been equally defamed, surveilled and harassed even if he hadn’t lied about the CIA email. Which undoubtedly is true, although it is questionable as a defense.
What Carter Page is doing is noble. Let’s hope he succeeds in shedding light on the biggest political scandal, by far, in American history.
Finally, a fun fact: Page is represented by the same lawyers who are representing Tulsi Gabbard in her defamation case against Hillary Clinton, who called Gabbard a Russian asset. Which, of course, is what she and her minions also called Carter Page, an equally absurd lie.


powerlineblog--2020-01-30--The question rephrased & unanswered

The question rephrased & unanswered


Rand Paul’s question

Chief Justice Roberts declined to read a question submitted by Senator Rand Paul during the ongoing question and answer session @ @ @ @ @ of President Trump today .
He declined to read the question and he failed to @ @ @ @ @ below ) .
Senator Paul has taken to Twitter to let us try to figure @ @ @ @ @ below ) .
Chief Justice Roberts inadvertently reminds us that we remain in Bananas territory @ @ @ @ @ a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham ” @ @

Chief Justice Roberts declined to read a question submitted by Senator Rand Paul during the ongoing question and answer session in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump today. He declined to read the question and he failed to offer an explanation (video below).
Senator @RandPaul sends question to the desk during Impeachment Trial. Chief Justice Roberts: "The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted." pic.twitter.com/CCeB33HnRP — CSPAN (@cspan) January 30, 2020
Senator Paul has taken to Twitter to let us try to figure things out for ourselves (below).
My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2 — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 30, 2020
My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun. — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 30, 2020
Chief Justice Roberts inadvertently reminds us that we remain in Bananas territory (“a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham”).
Via Kylee Zempel/Federalist (very helpful).


powerlineblog--2020-01-30--Ezra Levant tells them to stuff it

Ezra Levant tells them to stuff it

I wrote a best-selling book about Justin Trudeau in the last election .
After the election , I received a @ @ @ @ @ me that I was being investigated for that book .
Trudeau ’ s elections commissioner @ @ @ @ @ campaign activity and demanded that I submit to an interrogation .
So I went to @ @ @ @ @ headquarters last week , where I was grilled for an hour by two 30-year veterans @ @ @ @ @ they refused to rule out a police raid on Rebel News headquarters !
They didn @ @ @ @ @ recorded his interrogation .
Below is part 1 .
Part 2 is coming soon .
@ @ @ @ @ they are ?
Where is the lead investigator ?
What is the complaint ?
Franz @ @ @ @ @ .

Ezra Levant writes:
I wrote a best-selling book about Justin Trudeau in the last election. After the election, I received a letter by registered mail notifying me that I was being investigated for that book. Trudeau’s elections commissioner claimed it was an illegal campaign activity and demanded that I submit to an interrogation. So I went to Elections Canada’s Ottawa headquarters last week, where I was grilled for an hour by two 30-year veterans of the RCMP — and they refused to rule out a police raid on Rebel News headquarters!
They didn’t know that Levant recorded his interrogation. Below is part 1. Part 2 is coming soon.
Who do these people think they are? Where is the lead investigator? What is the complaint? Franz Kafka, call your office.
Free Canada! Overthrow Trudeau!
Related: Brad Smith, “Celebrate the Citizens United Decade” (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 20, 2020).


powerlineblog--2020-02-03--Bar complaints against Trump’s defense team?

Michael Gerhardt is a law professor at the University of North Carolina .
During the House impeachment hearings , Gerhardt embarrassed himself .
He claimed that if what President Trump was accused of doing “ is not impeachable , then nothing is.
” That ’ s absurd .
If the House hadn ’ t impeached Trump because of his Ukraine stunt , presidents could still be impeached for a multitude of offenses — e.g.
, selling state secrets to a foreign power or shutting down the Supreme Court .
Now , Gerhardt is saying that “ at some point we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the [ ] lawyers ” who represented President Trump during the Senate impeachment trial .
That ’ s what he told CNN yesterday .
This time , the professor is probably right .
Bar complaints , however frivolous , are likely to be filed against one or more of Trump ’ s lawyers .
It ’ s hard to go wrong betting that the left will engage in authoritarian tactics .
The modern left is hostile to any right that stands in the way of its quest for power — be it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free exercise of one ’ s religion , or to a vigorous legal defense .
Ethics charges against members of Trump ’ s legal team would be baseless .
As Jonathan Turley observes , in litigation , lawyers typically present one-sided renditions of the facts that include claims the other side considers false and that may , indeed , be false .
But even if a judge or jury rejects these assertions of fact , we don ’ t hit the losing lawyers with bar charges .
Turley also notes that the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his denial of any contacts between his staff and the whistleblower .
If bar complaints are to be filed in connection with the impeachment , Schiff should be the subject of one .
But arguments like these are of no importance to the modern left .
All that matters is that the lawyers in question defended a president the left despises .
Therefore , the left despises these lawyers .
Therefore , these lawyers must be punished .
They aren ’ t going to be jailed , so the left will settle for @ @ @ @ @ @

Michael Gerhardt is a law professor at the University of North Carolina. During the House impeachment hearings, Gerhardt embarrassed himself. He claimed that if what President Trump was accused of doing “is not impeachable, then nothing is.”
That’s absurd. If the House hadn’t impeached Trump because of his Ukraine stunt, presidents could still be impeached for a multitude of offenses — e.g., selling state secrets to a foreign power or shutting down the Supreme Court.
Now, Gerhardt is saying that “at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against the[] lawyers” who represented President Trump during the Senate impeachment trial. That’s what he told CNN yesterday.
This time, the professor is probably right. Bar complaints, however frivolous, are likely to be filed against one or more of Trump’s lawyers.
It’s hard to go wrong betting that the left will engage in authoritarian tactics. The modern left is hostile to any right that stands in the way of its quest for power — be it the right to free speech, to free exercise of one’s religion, or to a vigorous legal defense.
Ethics charges against members of Trump’s legal team would be baseless. As Jonathan Turley observes, in litigation, lawyers typically present one-sided renditions of the facts that include claims the other side considers false and that may, indeed, be false. But even if a judge or jury rejects these assertions of fact, we don’t hit the losing lawyers with bar charges.
Turley also notes that the Washington Post gave Adam Schiff four Pinocchios for his denial of any contacts between his staff and the whistleblower. If bar complaints are to be filed in connection with the impeachment, Schiff should be the subject of one.
But arguments like these are of no importance to the modern left. All that matters is that the lawyers in question defended a president the left despises. Therefore, the left despises these lawyers. Therefore, these lawyers must be punished.
They aren’t going to be jailed, so the left will settle for bar complaints. For now.


powerlineblog--2020-02-03--Beyonce, Jay-Z Sit for National Anthem

Beyonce, Jay-Z Sit for National Anthem

I am watching the Super Bowl–excellent game so far !
–but I missed the National Anthem .
By all accounts @ @ @ @ @ very good job .
But some did not appreciate it .
The Daily Mail , @ @ @ @ @ news , reports that Jay-Z and his wife Beyonce ostentatiously remained seated while those around @ @ @ @ @ has been so cruel to them , obviously .
For what it is worth , @ @ @ @ @ have passed peak stupidity .
The Left has been unleashed and unhinged for some years @ @ @ @ @ optimist , but I think insanity has a sell-by date .

I am watching the Super Bowl–excellent game so far!–but I missed the National Anthem. By all accounts, Demi Lovato did a very good job. But some did not appreciate it. The Daily Mail, the indispensable source for American news, reports that Jay-Z and his wife Beyonce ostentatiously remained seated while those around them stood:
Because America has been so cruel to them, obviously.
For what it is worth, I suspect that we may have passed peak stupidity. The Left has been unleashed and unhinged for some years now. Call me an optimist, but I think insanity has a sell-by date.


powerlineblog--2020-02-02--Terror Attack In London…Despite Diversity

Earlier today , a man described by authorities as an Islamic terrorist stabbed three people in Streatham , a part of south London .
He stole a knife from a store and immediately began stabbing people with it ; one was injured critically .
Police arrived within a few minutes and shot him .
( One thing about the London police , they aren ’ t shy about saving taxpayers the money involved in trial and incarceration . )
The terrorist , like the London Bridge attacker of a couple of months ago , was wearing a “ suicide belt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The London Times reports here , the Sun here .
The Sun quotes various witnesses and politicians .
This is the one I want to take note of : Co-leader of the Green Party , Jonathan Bartley , 48 , who heard the gunshots , told Sun Online : “ I am absolutely shocked and devastated .
“ I am in disbelief that this could happen in Streatham .
This is one of the most diverse , inclusive and tolerant communities in London.
” The idea that diversity and inclusivity are somehow antidotes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never die .
The girls of Rotherham might have been able to explain , but no one asked them to comment .

Earlier today, a man described by authorities as an Islamic terrorist stabbed three people in Streatham, a part of south London. He stole a knife from a store and immediately began stabbing people with it; one was injured critically. Police arrived within a few minutes and shot him. (One thing about the London police, they aren’t shy about saving taxpayers the money involved in trial and incarceration.) The terrorist, like the London Bridge attacker of a couple of months ago, was wearing a “suicide belt” that presumably was a fake.
The London Times reports here, the Sun here. The Sun quotes various witnesses and politicians. This is the one I want to take note of:
Co-leader of the Green Party, Jonathan Bartley, 48, who heard the gunshots, told Sun Online: “I am absolutely shocked and devastated. “I am in disbelief that this could happen in Streatham. This is one of the most diverse, inclusive and tolerant communities in London.”
The idea that diversity and inclusivity are somehow antidotes to extremism is one that apparently will never die. The girls of Rotherham might have been able to explain, but no one asked them to comment.


powerlineblog--2020-02-02--It’s John Bolton’s turn

It’s John Bolton’s turn

So now it ’ s John Bolton who , in the name of defending President Trump , is to be demonized by conservatives .
Some conservatives will find the task an easy one .
Bolton is a foreign policy/national security hawk .
Many conservatives have become rather dovish .
But many other conservatives have continued to admire , or at least respect , Bolton .
We like his hard line stance against America ’ s worst enemies , especially Iran .
Bolton has plenty of company under the Trump bus .
Some of it is good company .
Jeff Sessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But he fell out of favor for the sin of meeting his ethical obligations as Attorney General and declining , in his capacity as AG , to act as Trump ’ s consigliere .
After his dismissal , Sessions declined to say anything adverse to Trump ’ s interests .
Sessions is a gracious man and he wanted to return to the Senate .
Bolton , by most accounts , isn ’ t gracious and he has no intention of running for office .
Thus , he felt no need to hold back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that doesn ’ t mean he deserves to be demonized .
He does deserve to be demonized if he has written falsely about Trump .
However , there is no reason to believe that what he has written about Trump ’ s Ukraine policy , or what Trump told him about it , is false .
Anyone who has taken the trouble to review the record with even a half-open mind should conclude that Trump ’ s policy was , as Bolton says Trump told him , to withhold aid to Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s government to investigate the Bidens ( or at least announce that it would do so ) .
Nor is there any reason to believe that Bolton was okay with Trump ’ s policy until Trump fired him — though even if this were the case , it wouldn ’ t show that the policy was other than what Bolton described .
Fiona Hill , who worked closely with Bolton at the White House , testified that Bolton analogized the effort to induce Ukraine to investigate the Bidens to a “ drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by it before Trump sacked him .
( Bolton ’ s August statement that Trump and Ukraine ’ s president had cordial phone conversations is not at all inconsistent with Bolton ’ s account of what Trump told him about his Ukraine policy ) .
Does Bolton deserve to be demonized for writing a book about his time at the White House while Trump is still president , and in his first term ?
There was a time when ex-staffers and officials didn ’ t do this .
However , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also standard practice in this genre to report what the president said to the author about important issues .
Indeed , this is the most valuable information an ex-White House staffer or ex-Cabinet member can provide .
( I ’ m not aware of any evidence that these kinds of reports have prevented presidents and their advisers from speaking candidly to one another . )
The more “ hot button ” the subject of an insider report , the more valuable the report .
The question of whether there was a quid pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ukraine and a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens is both disputed and ( to say the least ) of interest .
It may be that , although the public has a strong interest in knowing what Trump said to Bolton about the matter , Bolton is not permitted to publish a book containing this information .
If Bolton has violated any law , he deserves to be criticized and punished for it .
If , going forward , he violates any law , he will deserve to be criticized and punished .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has violated the law , I see no reason to criticize Bolton , much less to demonize him .
Assuming no such violation , and assuming he has written truthfully , Bolton has done the public a service by providing information about a matter President Trump chose ( unnecessarily because he has other , better defenses against impeachment ) to dispute — a matter that , presumably , will still be in dispute when the book is published .
Finally , I want to comment on what Trump said about Bolton .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago , couldn ’ t get approved for anything since , “ begged ” me for a non Senate approved job , which I gave him despite many saying “ Don ’ t do it , sir , ” takes the job , mistakenly says “ Libyan Model ” on T.V.
, and many more mistakes of judgement , gets fired because frankly , if I listened to him , we would be in World War Six by now , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & untrue book .
All Classified National Security .
Who would do this ?
My question is : Who would appoint such a man to be his national security advisor ?
Fortunately , Trump has presented a caricature of Bolton , not a true picture .
Otherwise , we would be forced to conclude that , against the advice of his counselors , Trump appointed a known warmonger with terrible judgment to this crucial position for no better reason than that Bolton begged him to .
Even though we ’ re not forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still ask why Trump has selected for top positions so many people whom he later found seriously wanting .
Either Trump is a very poor judge of talent and character or he ’ s one unlucky president .

So now it’s John Bolton who, in the name of defending President Trump, is to be demonized by conservatives. Some conservatives will find the task an easy one. Bolton is a foreign policy/national security hawk. Many conservatives have become rather dovish.
But many other conservatives have continued to admire, or at least respect, Bolton. We like his hard line stance against America’s worst enemies, especially Iran.
Bolton has plenty of company under the Trump bus. Some of it is good company.
Jeff Sessions was a conservative hero of longstanding. But he fell out of favor for the sin of meeting his ethical obligations as Attorney General and declining, in his capacity as AG, to act as Trump’s consigliere.
After his dismissal, Sessions declined to say anything adverse to Trump’s interests. Sessions is a gracious man and he wanted to return to the Senate.
Bolton, by most accounts, isn’t gracious and he has no intention of running for office. Thus, he felt no need to hold back when writing about the Trump administration. But that doesn’t mean he deserves to be demonized.
He does deserve to be demonized if he has written falsely about Trump. However, there is no reason to believe that what he has written about Trump’s Ukraine policy, or what Trump told him about it, is false. Anyone who has taken the trouble to review the record with even a half-open mind should conclude that Trump’s policy was, as Bolton says Trump told him, to withhold aid to Ukraine for the purpose of inducing that country’s government to investigate the Bidens (or at least announce that it would do so).
Nor is there any reason to believe that Bolton was okay with Trump’s policy until Trump fired him — though even if this were the case, it wouldn’t show that the policy was other than what Bolton described. Fiona Hill, who worked closely with Bolton at the White House, testified that Bolton analogized the effort to induce Ukraine to investigate the Bidens to a “drug deal.” Obviously, he was disgusted by it before Trump sacked him. (Bolton’s August statement that Trump and Ukraine’s president had cordial phone conversations is not at all inconsistent with Bolton’s account of what Trump told him about his Ukraine policy).
Does Bolton deserve to be demonized for writing a book about his time at the White House while Trump is still president, and in his first term? There was a time when ex-staffers and officials didn’t do this. However, it’s common practice now.
It’s also standard practice in this genre to report what the president said to the author about important issues. Indeed, this is the most valuable information an ex-White House staffer or ex-Cabinet member can provide. (I’m not aware of any evidence that these kinds of reports have prevented presidents and their advisers from speaking candidly to one another.)
The more “hot button” the subject of an insider report, the more valuable the report. The question of whether there was a quid pro quo relationship between the release of aid to Ukraine and a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens is both disputed and (to say the least) of interest.
It may be that, although the public has a strong interest in knowing what Trump said to Bolton about the matter, Bolton is not permitted to publish a book containing this information. If Bolton has violated any law, he deserves to be criticized and punished for it. If, going forward, he violates any law, he will deserve to be criticized and punished.
However, absent a showing that Bolton has violated the law, I see no reason to criticize Bolton, much less to demonize him. Assuming no such violation, and assuming he has written truthfully, Bolton has done the public a service by providing information about a matter President Trump chose (unnecessarily because he has other, better defenses against impeachment) to dispute — a matter that, presumably, will still be in dispute when the book is published.
Finally, I want to comment on what Trump said about Bolton. The president tweeted:
For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, “begged” me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying “Don’t do it, sir,” takes the job, mistakenly says “Libyan Model” on T.V., and many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?
My question is: Who would appoint such a man to be his national security advisor? Fortunately, Trump has presented a caricature of Bolton, not a true picture. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that, against the advice of his counselors, Trump appointed a known warmonger with terrible judgment to this crucial position for no better reason than that Bolton begged him to.
Even though we’re not forced to reach this conclusion, we must still ask why Trump has selected for top positions so many people whom he later found seriously wanting. Either Trump is a very poor judge of talent and character or he’s one unlucky president.


powerlineblog--2020-02-02--Today at the Democrats’ Comedy Club

Today at the Democrats’ Comedy Club

To paraphrase Will Rogers , it ’ s no trouble being a humorist when you have the whole Democratic Party working for you .
It ’ s their very best free stuff .
Check out this story reported today by NBC News : John Kerry overheard discussing possible 2020 bid amid concern of ‘ Sanders taking down the Democratic Party ’ DES MOINES , Iowa — Former Secretary of State John Kerry — one of Joe Biden ’ s highest-profile endorsers — was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel explaining what he would have to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.
” Sitting in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel , Kerry was overheard by an NBC News analyst saying “ maybe I ’ m f—ing deluding myself here ” and explaining that in order to run , he ’ d have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches .
First of all , John Kerry is giving paid speeches ?
!
?
!
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 25,000 for a 30 minute speech , but $ 50,000 for a 15 minute speech , and $ 100,000 for an appearance that only involves a wave to the crowd ?
Who could possibly be booking him for a paid speech—the Amalgamated Flower-Power-Zipper Pull Manufacturers Association ?
And why does a guy who married a billionaire heiress need to give paid speeches anyway ?
Second , how bad off does your party have to be to think that John Kerry is the answer ?
This would stump even the most brilliant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is : John Kerry.
” Buzz .
“ Who is the most implausible Democratic 2020 nominee , Alex ?
” But this is the very best part of the NBC report , but fair warning—do not have a mouthful of coffee before you read this : Kerry , who has campaigned with Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire , may be nervous about the former vice president ’ s chances ahead of Monday ’ s first-in-the-nation primary caucuses .
At a North Liberty , Iowa , campaign event on Saturday , Kerry spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .
Good thing the Secret Service screens out sharp objects at Biden ’ s appearances , or the suicide rate would skyrocket .

To paraphrase Will Rogers, it’s no trouble being a humorist when you have the whole Democratic Party working for you. It’s their very best free stuff.
Check out this story reported today by NBC News:
John Kerry overheard discussing possible 2020 bid amid concern of ‘Sanders taking down the Democratic Party’ DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Secretary of State John Kerry — one of Joe Biden’s highest-profile endorsers — was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel explaining what he would have to do to enter the presidential race amid “the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.” Sitting in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, Kerry was overheard by an NBC News analyst saying “maybe I’m f—ing deluding myself here” and explaining that in order to run, he’d have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches.
First of all, John Kerry is giving paid speeches?!?! I’m curious what the rate structure is: $25,000 for a 30 minute speech, but $50,000 for a 15 minute speech, and $100,000 for an appearance that only involves a wave to the crowd? Who could possibly be booking him for a paid speech—the Amalgamated Flower-Power-Zipper Pull Manufacturers Association? And why does a guy who married a billionaire heiress need to give paid speeches anyway?
Second, how bad off does your party have to be to think that John Kerry is the answer? This would stump even the most brilliant and seasoned Jeopardy panel. “The answer is: John Kerry.” Buzz. “Who is the most implausible Democratic 2020 nominee, Alex?”
But this is the very best part of the NBC report, but fair warning—do not have a mouthful of coffee before you read this:
Kerry, who has campaigned with Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire, may be nervous about the former vice president’s chances ahead of Monday’s first-in-the-nation primary caucuses. At a North Liberty, Iowa, campaign event on Saturday, Kerry spoke both after and for longer than Biden did.
Good thing the Secret Service screens out sharp objects at Biden’s appearances, or the suicide rate would skyrocket.


powerlineblog--2020-02-03--“Numerous historians and legal experts” are wrong about impeachment

Among those who write for the Washington Post ’ s news pages , Philip Rucker is arguably the most vicious and dishonest when it comes to President Trump .
Rucker ’ s latest anti-Trump article is called ( in the paper edition ) “ Probable acquittal [ of Trump ] will have long-term effects.
” The subtitle is “ Senate lowering bar for presidents ’ permissible conduct , historians say.
” In the body of the article , Rucker claims that this view is supported by “ numerous historians and legal experts.
” Who are these “ historians ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Jon Meacham and Timothy Naftali , both Trump haters .
Who are these “ legal experts ” ?
Rucker doesn ’ t cite any .
This failure is probably a function of laziness by Rucker .
Given the widespread hatred of Trump in academia , Rucker could have found “ numerous historians and legal experts ” to back his claim that the Senate , when it acquits Trump , will lower the bar on what conduct is impeachable .
The claim is nonsense , though .
Trump was impeached without any allegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statute .
No president has ever been impeached without a crime or statutory violation in the picture .
Andrew Johnson was accused of violating a statute that carried a possible prison sentence .
Bill Clinton was accused of perjury .
The articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon alleged conduct that could be charged as criminal in an ordinary court .
Trump stands accused , in essence , of making substantive U.S. foreign policy decisions based on his desire to be reelected president .
No president has ever been impeached for this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ base an important aspect of his foreign policy on electoral concerns .
Barack Obama , among other presidents , did it — or says he did .
Obama told Russia ’ s president that after his reelection , his policy towards Russia would change .
This is an admission that Obama ’ s pre-election policy towards Russia was ( 1 ) the product of his desire to be reelected and ( 2 ) not the policy he thought best for America .
Trump , for a brief time , did something similar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine , at least with respect to providing military aid , was the product of his desire to defeat Joe Biden if the Democrats were to nominate him , and perhaps his desire to undermine Biden ’ s attempt to win the nomination so Trump could run against a weaker nominee .
Unlike Obama , however , it ’ s not at all clear that Trump was eschewing the policy he thought best for the country .
From a policy perspective , giving military to aid to Ukraine is probably a matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those of us who believe aiding Ukraine is important , doing so ( or not ) is less consequential than our overall policy towards Russia , the country whose aggression Ukraine is trying to resist .
It ’ s possible that Obama was lying to Ukraine ’ s president when he said , in effect , that his Russia policy was based on electoral considerations and was not the policy he thought best for America .
But if the standard for impeachment is what Meacham , Naftali , Rucker , and Rucker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts believe it to be , then , at a minimum , Obama should have been the subject of an “ impeachment inquiry.
” He wasn ’ t , and I ’ m pretty sure that neither Meacham , Naftali , nor Rucker called for such an inquiry .
They were right not to .
Obama ’ s conduct didn ’ t meet the constitutional standard for impeachment .
Neither does Trump ’ s .

Among those who write for the Washington Post’s news pages, Philip Rucker is arguably the most vicious and dishonest when it comes to President Trump. Rucker’s latest anti-Trump article is called (in the paper edition) “Probable acquittal [of Trump] will have long-term effects.” The subtitle is “Senate lowering bar for presidents’ permissible conduct, historians say.”
In the body of the article, Rucker claims that this view is supported by “numerous historians and legal experts.” Who are these “historians”? Rucker’s article cites only two: Jon Meacham and Timothy Naftali, both Trump haters.
Who are these “legal experts”? Rucker doesn’t cite any.
This failure is probably a function of laziness by Rucker. Given the widespread hatred of Trump in academia, Rucker could have found “numerous historians and legal experts” to back his claim that the Senate, when it acquits Trump, will lower the bar on what conduct is impeachable.
The claim is nonsense, though. Trump was impeached without any allegation that he committed a crime or violated a statute. No president has ever been impeached without a crime or statutory violation in the picture.
Andrew Johnson was accused of violating a statute that carried a possible prison sentence. Bill Clinton was accused of perjury. The articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon alleged conduct that could be charged as criminal in an ordinary court.
Trump stands accused, in essence, of making substantive U.S. foreign policy decisions based on his desire to be reelected president. No president has ever been impeached for this.
Nor is Trump the first president to base an important aspect of his foreign policy on electoral concerns. Barack Obama, among other presidents, did it — or says he did.
Obama told Russia’s president that after his reelection, his policy towards Russia would change. This is an admission that Obama’s pre-election policy towards Russia was (1) the product of his desire to be reelected and (2) not the policy he thought best for America.
Trump, for a brief time, did something similar, though less egregious. His policy towards Ukraine, at least with respect to providing military aid, was the product of his desire to defeat Joe Biden if the Democrats were to nominate him, and perhaps his desire to undermine Biden’s attempt to win the nomination so Trump could run against a weaker nominee.
Unlike Obama, however, it’s not at all clear that Trump was eschewing the policy he thought best for the country. From a policy perspective, giving military to aid to Ukraine is probably a matter of indifference to Trump. Moreover, even for those of us who believe aiding Ukraine is important, doing so (or not) is less consequential than our overall policy towards Russia, the country whose aggression Ukraine is trying to resist.
It’s possible that Obama was lying to Ukraine’s president when he said, in effect, that his Russia policy was based on electoral considerations and was not the policy he thought best for America. But if the standard for impeachment is what Meacham, Naftali, Rucker, and Rucker’s legion of historians and legal experts believe it to be, then, at a minimum, Obama should have been the subject of an “impeachment inquiry.”
He wasn’t, and I’m pretty sure that neither Meacham, Naftali, nor Rucker called for such an inquiry.
They were right not to. Obama’s conduct didn’t meet the constitutional standard for impeachment. Neither does Trump’s.


The Jeffries distinction

Inside the sordid impeachment saga there must be a fat Robert Ludlum novel struggling to get out .
In the @ @ @ @ @ trial this past Thursday , for example , House impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries quickly offered @ @ @ @ @ to a question posed by Senator Richard Burr .
In The Jeffries Distinction he differentiated @ @ @ @ @ election undertaken by the Democrats from whatever Trump has been impeached for .
Jeffries not @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats paid good money for the Steele Dossier — he added a dollop of @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theories ” for good measure .
Jeffries must not have been prepared for the @ @ @ @ @ manager Adam Schiff would have done better than that , but he still would not @ @ @ @ @ .
The correct answer is that the Democrats know how to do these things and @ @ @ @ @ The Republicans can ’ t even get away with doing nothing .

Inside the sordid impeachment saga there must be a fat Robert Ludlum novel struggling to get out. In the video below from the Senate trial this past Thursday, for example, House impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries quickly offered The Jeffries Distinction in response to a question posed by Senator Richard Burr. In The Jeffries Distinction he differentiated foreign meddling in the 2016 election undertaken by the Democrats from whatever Trump has been impeached for. Jeffries not only offered his distinction — the Democrats paid good money for the Steele Dossier — he added a dollop of what he describes as “conspiracy theories” for good measure.
Jeffries must not have been prepared for the question. Chief House impeachment manager Adam Schiff would have done better than that, but he still would not have gotten the correct answer. The correct answer is that the Democrats know how to do these things and get away with them. The Republicans can’t even get away with doing nothing.


powerlineblog--2020-02-03--“Fight House,” Tevi Troy’s superb history of modern White House infighting

I admire people who do things I couldn ’ t do .
I don ’ t admire people who do things I wouldn ’ t do .
In some cases , depending on what the “ things ” are , I have contempt for such people .
Cabinet members and high level White House staffers do things I couldn ’ t do .
In most cases , that ’ s one reason why they get as far as they do .
Unfortunately , some cabinet members and high level White House staffers do things most of us wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other .
Thus , every post-World War II administration has been plagued by infighting .
That infighting is the subject of Tevi Troy ’ s superb new book , Fight House .
The book is full of gossip , which makes it fun to read .
But Tevi also ties the gossip to the way each administration played out , including its policies .
Tevi identifies the three key ingredients that can contribute to , and determine the extent of , infighting in an administration .
They are ideological discord , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s tolerance for infighting .
But it ’ s the clashes themselves , especially those involving titans , that make Tevi ’ s book so enjoyable .
Here are some of the major ones he describes : Few of these combatants come off looking good .
For my money , Robert Kennedy and Henry Kissinger come off worst , with Zbigniew Brzezinski a little bit behind Kissinger ( as he was in several other respects , too ) .
Robert Hartmann and Michael Deaver strike me as the worst of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think Clark Clifford does , both as a young staffer under Truman and as Secretary of Defense under Johnson .
George Ball , who dissented from Johnson ’ s Vietnam policy , also deserves credit .
So do Ed Meese and Donald Rumsfeld for refusing to use leaks as a means of gaining an advantage over their rivals .
Unfortunately , their forbearance proved to be a disadvantage .
Nearly all of the presidents Tevi covers could have have handled the infighting in their administrations better .
However , only Lyndon Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not devote a chapter to the Trump administration , though he does discuss it in his concluding chapter .
I hope that one day Tevi will update his book with a chapter about infighting in the Trump White House .
Make that several chapters .
In fact , my only regret about Fight House is that it doesn ’ t cover more administrations .
I was sad when the book ended .
But it ’ s not Tevi ’ s fault that he didn ’ t write a longer book .
There has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the clash during George Washington ’ s administration between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton ) .
However , the level of infighting Tevi describes is a function of the rise of the White House staff , a fairly recent development .
Tevi might have included a chapter on FDR .
However , going back any further would have been unwise .
So would writing the history of infighting under Trump at the stage his presidency was at when Tevi wrote the book .
STEVE adds : Tevi will be a guest soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book .
Stay tuned for updates .

I admire people who do things I couldn’t do. I don’t admire people who do things I wouldn’t do. In some cases, depending on what the “things” are, I have contempt for such people.
Cabinet members and high level White House staffers do things I couldn’t do. In most cases, that’s one reason why they get as far as they do.
Unfortunately, some cabinet members and high level White House staffers do things most of us wouldn’t do, and they do them to each other. Thus, every post-World War II administration has been plagued by infighting.
That infighting is the subject of Tevi Troy’s superb new book, Fight House. The book is full of gossip, which makes it fun to read. But Tevi also ties the gossip to the way each administration played out, including its policies.
Tevi identifies the three key ingredients that can contribute to, and determine the extent of, infighting in an administration. They are ideological discord, a flawed White House process, and the president’s tolerance for infighting.
But it’s the clashes themselves, especially those involving titans, that make Tevi’s book so enjoyable. Here are some of the major ones he describes:
Truman administration: George Marshall vs. Clark Clifford
Eisenhower administration: John Foster Dulles vs. Harold Stassen.
Kennedy administration: Lyndon Johnson vs. Robert Kennedy
Johnson administration: Robert McNamara vs. George Ball
Nixon administration: Henry Kissinger vs. William Rogers
Ford administration: Robert Hartmann vs. Alexander Haig and Donald Rumsfeld
Carter administration: Cyrus Vance vs. Zbigniew Brzezinski
Reagan administration: Michael Deaver vs. Haig and Ed Meese
Bush 41 administration: Richard Darman vs. nearly everyone
Clinton administration: Dick Morris vs. Harold Ickes
Bush 43 administration: Rumsfeld vs. Colin Powell and Richard Armitage
Obama administration: Valerie Jarrett vs. Rahm Emmanuel
Few of these combatants come off looking good. For my money, Robert Kennedy and Henry Kissinger come off worst, with Zbigniew Brzezinski a little bit behind Kissinger (as he was in several other respects, too). Robert Hartmann and Michael Deaver strike me as the worst of the non-titans.
Who comes off well? I think Clark Clifford does, both as a young staffer under Truman and as Secretary of Defense under Johnson. George Ball, who dissented from Johnson’s Vietnam policy, also deserves credit.
So do Ed Meese and Donald Rumsfeld for refusing to use leaks as a means of gaining an advantage over their rivals. Unfortunately, their forbearance proved to be a disadvantage.
Nearly all of the presidents Tevi covers could have have handled the infighting in their administrations better. However, only Lyndon Johnson comes off looking evil.
Tevi does not devote a chapter to the Trump administration, though he does discuss it in his concluding chapter. I hope that one day Tevi will update his book with a chapter about infighting in the Trump White House. Make that several chapters.
In fact, my only regret about Fight House is that it doesn’t cover more administrations. I was sad when the book ended.
But it’s not Tevi’s fault that he didn’t write a longer book. There has always been infighting within administrations (think of the clash during George Washington’s administration between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). However, the level of infighting Tevi describes is a function of the rise of the White House staff, a fairly recent development.
Tevi might have included a chapter on FDR. However, going back any further would have been unwise. So would writing the history of infighting under Trump at the stage his presidency was at when Tevi wrote the book.
Here’s hoping for a sequel.
STEVE adds: Tevi will be a guest soon on our podcast to talk about the book. Stay tuned for updates.


Halftime for halfwits

I haven ’ t thought about Hunter Thompson or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in a long time , @ @ @ @ @ while watching the Super Bowl halftime show yesterday .
I was thinking of this quote @ @ @ @ @ : “ The Circus-Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night @ @ @ @ @ the war .
This is the sixth Reich .
The ground floor is full of @ @ @ @ @ the other casinos… but the place is about four stories high , in the style @ @ @ @ @ and all manner of strange County-Fair/Polish Carnival madness is going on up in this space.
@ @ @ @ @ said about the degraded spectacle that the NFL served up for its halftime show yesterday @ @ @ @ @ in the day to lament the degradation , but it probably should be noted .
@ @ @ @ @ Thompson ’ s take on Circus Circus isn ’ t bad for this particular disgrace @ @ @ @ @ applicable to the halftime show than to Circus Circus .

I haven’t thought about Hunter Thompson or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in a long time, but I thought about both while watching the Super Bowl halftime show yesterday. I was thinking of this quote from Thompson’s classic: “The Circus-Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war. This is the sixth Reich. The ground floor is full of gambling tables, like all the other casinos… but the place is about four stories high, in the style of a circus tent, and all manner of strange County-Fair/Polish Carnival madness is going on up in this space.”
What is to be said about the degraded spectacle that the NFL served up for its halftime show yesterday? It’s late in the day to lament the degradation, but it probably should be noted. With a few adjustments, Thompson’s take on Circus Circus isn’t bad for this particular disgrace and it is probably more applicable to the halftime show than to Circus Circus.


Roberts rules

Senate Minority Leader Schumer seems to have thought he might get 50 votes for the Dems ’ motion to add “ witnesses ” and “ documents ” to the case assembled by the House impeachment managers .
Planning ahead , Schumer wondered what might happen in the event of a tie vote on the Dems ’ motion .
Schumer raised the issue by way of an “ inquiry ” to Chief Justice Roberts this past Friday , seeking to have Roberts commit himself to breaking a tie vote if one should materialize .
In support of the implicit argument of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two instances in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase made tie-breaking votes in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 .
Roberts was prepared to address the issue and provided what I thought was a devastating response — a response that exposed the thinness of Schumer ’ s “ inquiry.
” Erielle Davidson notes the exchange in “ Chief Justice Roberts Is Right : An Unelected Official Should Not Cast Tie-Breaking Votes.
” She doesn ’ t put it in the context of the Dems ’ brouhaha about “ witnesses , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Davidson quotes Roberts : “ I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties .
If the members of this body , elected by the people and accountable to them , divide equally on a motion , normal rule is that the motion fails .
I think it would be inappropriate for me , an unelected official from a different branch of government , to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.
” Were it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have seen this exchange .
I am posting the tweet with the video below for readers who might find it of interest , as I did .

Senate Minority Leader Schumer seems to have thought he might get 50 votes for the Dems’ motion to add “witnesses” and “documents” to the case assembled by the House impeachment managers. Planning ahead, Schumer wondered what might happen in the event of a tie vote on the Dems’ motion.
Schumer raised the issue by way of an “inquiry” to Chief Justice Roberts this past Friday, seeking to have Roberts commit himself to breaking a tie vote if one should materialize. In support of the implicit argument of his “inquiry,” Schumer cited two instances in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase made tie-breaking votes in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Roberts was prepared to address the issue and provided what I thought was a devastating response — a response that exposed the thinness of Schumer’s “inquiry.”
Erielle Davidson notes the exchange in “Chief Justice Roberts Is Right: An Unelected Official Should Not Cast Tie-Breaking Votes.” She doesn’t put it in the context of the Dems’ brouhaha about “witnesses,” which is where I think it belongs.
Davidson quotes Roberts: “I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties. If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”
Were it not for Twitter, I wouldn’t have seen this exchange. I am posting the tweet with the video below for readers who might find it of interest, as I did.