hotair--2020-06-12--Historic: Half of Trump's National Security Council advisers are women

Where is Annie Leibovitz when we need her ?
Leibovitz , a widely-celebrated photographer with a liberal political philosophy , is well-known for her photos of famous celebrities and public figures .
If the current administration was a Democrat one , you can bet that her assistant would be booking a photography session with a historic group of women in the Trump administration .
President Trump has a historic first in American history to document – for the first time , half of the senior leaders of the National Security Council are women .
Twelve of the 24 directorates are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the six regional directorates .
Not bad for an Orange Man who is supposed to have a low opinion of women , right ?
Not surprisingly , this milestone has not received much notice in the press at all .
Leibovitz is probably best known for her work for Vogue magazine , for which she is compensated with a multi-million dollar annual contract .
She regularly photographed the Obama family and members of his administration .
The last big splash Annie Leibovitz made that I ’ ve noticed was when she took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat primary for the presidential nomination .
Remember that photo of Kamala Harris , Elizabeth Warren , Kirstin Gillibrand , Amy Klobuchar , and Tulsi Gabbard ?
Sorry , Marianne Williamson .
So , the women in the Trump administration are speaking up and commending the president for his appointments .
The women speaking out include Ivanka Trump .
( That will tick off # TheResistance feminists . )
The Federalist has a quote .
The phoniest trope of all coming from the left is that the Democrat Party is the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat Party the one of abortion on demand right up until the time of birth but it has sheltered and protected bad actors like Bill Clinton , JFK , Harvey Weinstein , Chris Dodd , Ted Kennedy , and so on .
Democrat women have supported them most of all – right up until the # MeToo movement began to expose a lot of nefarious behavior .
I am old enough to remember a woman reporter who “ joked ” that she ’ d be happy to , um , service Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is running on past legislation he is taking credit for that he says benefitted women but even sleepy old Joe has a pervy history of his own – and there ’ s the Tara Reade story .
Did you notice the press didn ’ t bother to report about her allegations until they absolutely had to do so ?
I wish Republican politicians were more skilled at noting important appointments of women by Republican presidents .
Ronald Reagan appointed Jeane Kirkpatrick as the first woman to serve as United States Ambassador to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connor as the first woman Supreme Court justice .
George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice as the first female National Security Adviser and then the first black female Secretary of State .
President Trump ’ s campaign produced the first woman campaign manager to win a presidential election .
Frankly , the Trump administration should be better at tooting its own horn .
Last year , National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien announced he would be streamlining the National Security Council .
Past administrations have had security councils of different sizes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – over 200 staffers .
( And he still got everything wrong ! )
O ’ Brien wanted to get back to more of a George H.W .
Bush size model under Brent Scowcroft or George W. Bush size model under Condoleezza Rice .
Members of the community approve of his decision .
“ Under President Trump ’ s leadership , over the past nine months we have brought the NSC back to its proper size and role as a lean and efficient advisory body , and we were able to make that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongest leaders in the history of the NSC , half of whom are women for the first time ever , ” O ’ Brien said .
The streamlined NSC has received plaudits within the national security community .
“ There are some exceptionally capable people over there focused on getting wins on the board for the country , ” said Rebeccah Heinrichs , a national security scholar with the Hudson Institute , citing a “ willingness to reconsider approaches to persistent problems and guts to do some things that are long overdue.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he doesn ’ t seem to have a problem working with women in leadership positions .
In February , O ’ Brien named Deborah Birx to the NSC , where she works on detail from the State Department .
She was named the head of the Coronavirus Task Force .
O ’ Brien said that streamlining the NSA and making it more efficient was a priority for Trump .
“ Under previous administrations , the NSC more than doubled in size and duplicated many of the functions of DoD , State and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brien told The Post on Tuesday .
“ Under President Trump , we have brought the NSC back to its proper size and role as a coordinating body , ” he continued .
“ To make that happen we require the best leaders , many of whom are women .
Our goal is always to find the very best professionals for each job , and I am very proud of the team we have assembled at the NSC to further President Trump ’ s agenda , ” he said .
Any time a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ok with me .
To bring in smart , accomplished women to make up half of the top leadership positions is the icing on the cake .

Where is Annie Leibovitz when we need her? Leibovitz, a widely-celebrated photographer with a liberal political philosophy, is well-known for her photos of famous celebrities and public figures. If the current administration was a Democrat one, you can bet that her assistant would be booking a photography session with a historic group of women in the Trump administration.
President Trump has a historic first in American history to document – for the first time, half of the senior leaders of the National Security Council are women. Twelve of the 24 directorates are led by women, including three of the six regional directorates. Not bad for an Orange Man who is supposed to have a low opinion of women, right? Not surprisingly, this milestone has not received much notice in the press at all.
Leibovitz is probably best known for her work for Vogue magazine, for which she is compensated with a multi-million dollar annual contract. She regularly photographed the Obama family and members of his administration. The last big splash Annie Leibovitz made that I’ve noticed was when she took a photograph of five Democrat women running in the Democrat primary for the presidential nomination. Remember that photo of Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirstin Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, and Tulsi Gabbard? Sorry, Marianne Williamson.
So, the women in the Trump administration are speaking up and commending the president for his appointments. The women speaking out include Ivanka Trump. (That will tick off #TheResistance feminists.) The Federalist has a quote.
“President Trump has demonstrated his commitment to empowering women in the U.S. and across the world, implementing a pro-growth, pro-family agenda that lifts up women of all backgrounds. It’s no surprise that women are leading the way across the Trump administration, including more women leaders at the National Security Council than at any other time in history,” adviser to the President Ivanka Trump said.
The phoniest trope of all coming from the left is that the Democrat Party is the party for women. Not only is the Democrat Party the one of abortion on demand right up until the time of birth but it has sheltered and protected bad actors like Bill Clinton, JFK, Harvey Weinstein, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and so on. Democrat women have supported them most of all – right up until the #MeToo movement began to expose a lot of nefarious behavior. I am old enough to remember a woman reporter who “joked” that she’d be happy to, um, service Bill Clinton on Air Force One. Joe Biden is running on past legislation he is taking credit for that he says benefitted women but even sleepy old Joe has a pervy history of his own – and there’s the Tara Reade story. Did you notice the press didn’t bother to report about her allegations until they absolutely had to do so?
I wish Republican politicians were more skilled at noting important appointments of women by Republican presidents. Ronald Reagan appointed Jeane Kirkpatrick as the first woman to serve as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman Supreme Court justice. George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice as the first female National Security Adviser and then the first black female Secretary of State. President Trump’s campaign produced the first woman campaign manager to win a presidential election. Frankly, the Trump administration should be better at tooting its own horn.
Last year, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien announced he would be streamlining the National Security Council. Past administrations have had security councils of different sizes, with Obama’s being particularly large – over 200 staffers. (And he still got everything wrong!) O’Brien wanted to get back to more of a George H.W. Bush size model under Brent Scowcroft or George W. Bush size model under Condoleezza Rice. Members of the community approve of his decision.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, over the past nine months we have brought the NSC back to its proper size and role as a lean and efficient advisory body, and we were able to make that happen because we have some of the strongest leaders in the history of the NSC, half of whom are women for the first time ever,” O’Brien said. The streamlined NSC has received plaudits within the national security community. “There are some exceptionally capable people over there focused on getting wins on the board for the country,” said Rebeccah Heinrichs, a national security scholar with the Hudson Institute, citing a “willingness to reconsider approaches to persistent problems and guts to do some things that are long overdue.”
Despite how the left speaks about Trump, he doesn’t seem to have a problem working with women in leadership positions. In February, O’Brien named Deborah Birx to the NSC, where she works on detail from the State Department. She was named the head of the Coronavirus Task Force. O’Brien said that streamlining the NSA and making it more efficient was a priority for Trump.
“Under previous administrations, the NSC more than doubled in size and duplicated many of the functions of DoD, State and the intelligence community,” O’Brien told The Post on Tuesday. “Under President Trump, we have brought the NSC back to its proper size and role as a coordinating body,” he continued. “To make that happen we require the best leaders, many of whom are women. Our goal is always to find the very best professionals for each job, and I am very proud of the team we have assembled at the NSC to further President Trump’s agenda,” he said.
Any time a government organization can be cut and streamlined is ok with me. To bring in smart, accomplished women to make up half of the top leadership positions is the icing on the cake.


hotair--2020-06-12--Minneapolis City Council unanimously approves replacing the police department...with something

The Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously today to approve a resolution intended to abolish the existing police force and replace it with something else .
What exactly that is hasn ’ t been spelled out yet .
“ We acknowledge that the current system is not reformable — that we would like to end the current policing system as we know it , ” council member Alondra Cano said .
The resolution starts a yearlong process to create a new public safety model .
All 12 City Council members are listed as co-authors… The council will start a yearlong process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and structural change to create a transformative new model for cultivating safety , ” the resolution says .
The actual resolution is here .
Here ’ s a sample of the contents : Whereas , police violence and the use of excessive force have led to community destabilization , a decrease in public safety , and the exacerbation of racial inequities in Minneapolis… Now , Therefore , Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis : That the City Council will commence a year long process of community engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a transformative new model for cultivating safety in our city .
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council will engage with every willing community member in Minneapolis , centering the voices of Black people , American Indian people , people of color , immigrants , victims of harm , and other stakeholders who have been historically marginalized or under-served by our present system .
Together , we will identify what safety looks like for everyone… Be It Further Resolved that these efforts heed the words of Angela Davis , “ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to be non-racist .
We must be anti-racist.
” Well , at least they didn ’ t quote Assata Shakur .
The resolution establishes a “ Future of Community Safety Work Group ” which is to report back to the City Council on progress toward the new goal .
Part of me wants to be optimistic that , in the American tradition of trying something new , Minneapolis will come up with something that does actually limit the innumerable things police are now responsible for while also improving the department ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clear history of five-year plans and great leaps forward is that the most ambitious plans rarely end in triumph .
More likely it will end in some new and worse disaster .
That or it will end with nothing much changing at all as people make demands create conditions police are unable to accept .
For instance , some portion of the working group could demand that police be disarmed .
But at the end of the day , we are going to have to have armed police officers on hand to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thefts , etc .
If you say police in Minneapolis can ’ t be armed , you ’ re likely to see a lot of officers quit and move somewhere else .
No one wants to risk their life because some socialist crackpot thought it was a good idea .
Speaking of officers in Minneapolis , I can ’ t believe all of them are happy about what is happening here .
I ’ m sure some of them want to see change but this is really a vote of no confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wave or resignations in the coming weeks ?
How long before we hear from some of the people now on the force ?

The Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously today to approve a resolution intended to abolish the existing police force and replace it with something else. What exactly that is hasn’t been spelled out yet.
“We acknowledge that the current system is not reformable — that we would like to end the current policing system as we know it,” council member Alondra Cano said. The resolution starts a yearlong process to create a new public safety model. All 12 City Council members are listed as co-authors… The council will start a yearlong process “of community engagement, research, and structural change to create a transformative new model for cultivating safety,” the resolution says.
The actual resolution is here. Here’s a sample of the contents:
Whereas, police violence and the use of excessive force have led to community destabilization, a decrease in public safety, and the exacerbation of racial inequities in Minneapolis… Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis: That the City Council will commence a year long process of community engagement, research, and structural change to create a transformative new model for cultivating safety in our city. Be It Further Resolved that the City Council will engage with every willing community member in Minneapolis, centering the voices of Black people, American Indian people, people of color, immigrants, victims of harm, and other stakeholders who have been historically marginalized or under-served by our present system. Together, we will identify what safety looks like for everyone… Be It Further Resolved that these efforts heed the words of Angela Davis, “In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist.”
Well, at least they didn’t quote Assata Shakur. The resolution establishes a “Future of Community Safety Work Group” which is to report back to the City Council on progress toward the new goal.
Part of me wants to be optimistic that, in the American tradition of trying something new, Minneapolis will come up with something that does actually limit the innumerable things police are now responsible for while also improving the department’s relationship with the black community. But the clear history of five-year plans and great leaps forward is that the most ambitious plans rarely end in triumph. More likely it will end in some new and worse disaster. That or it will end with nothing much changing at all as people make demands create conditions police are unable to accept.
For instance, some portion of the working group could demand that police be disarmed. But at the end of the day, we are going to have to have armed police officers on hand to respond to murder, assault, threats, thefts, etc. If you say police in Minneapolis can’t be armed, you’re likely to see a lot of officers quit and move somewhere else. No one wants to risk their life because some socialist crackpot thought it was a good idea.
Speaking of officers in Minneapolis, I can’t believe all of them are happy about what is happening here. I’m sure some of them want to see change but this is really a vote of no confidence in their efforts. Will there be a wave or resignations in the coming weeks? How long before we hear from some of the people now on the force?


hotair--2020-06-12--Oh my: Newly woke Lady Antebellum stole black singer's stage name by becoming "Lady A"

This feels like the start of a comedy skit in which they keep changing their name to make it progressively more distinct and absurd , only to find each time that there ’ s already another musical act using that name .
“ Lady A ” ?
A black blues singer from Seattle .
“ Lady Confederacy ” ?
An all-female death-metal band from Nashville .
“ Lady War Of Northern Aggression ” ?
A middle-aged dude who produces chillwave in his basement in New Mexico .
Just plain “ Lady ” ?
A lounge act featuring two sisters from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice yesterday and renamed themselves “ Lady Antifa , ” which would have been maximum woke .
Although there ’ s probably an EDM act somewhere called that .
Think about what an unholy , almost impossible PR fiasco this has turned out to be .
No one really cared that they called themselves Lady Antebellum ; the word “ antebellum ” is a weighty choice for a southern band but they ’ ve explained repeatedly that it has nothing to do with sympathy for the Confederacy .
No one thinks they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wanted to signal their virtue at a moment of high solidarity across races against racism so they declared yesterday that henceforth they ’ d drop the “ Antebellum ” and be known by their fans ’ nickname for them , “ Lady A.
” It was a PR move .
Look what ’ s become of it .
It would have been bad but not terrible if there turned out to be another artist called “ Lady A.
” It would have been terrible but not hoo-boy-awful if that artist happened to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoo-boy-awful but not an apocalyptic disaster if that black artist objected but recognized their good intentions .
What they ended up with here , against all odds , was the apocalyptic disaster scenario : Appropriating the name of a black artist who ’ s now accusing them … of white privilege .
They should apologize immediately , drop “ Lady A , ” and adopt my new preferred name for them , Lady Plantation Nostalgia .
[ Anita ] White tells Rolling Stone she ’ s frustrated that Lady Antebellum hadn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pointing out the irony in changing a name in support of racial equality while simultaneously taking another one from a black performer .
“ This is my life .
Lady A is my brand , I ’ ve used it for over 20 years , and I ’ m proud of what I ’ ve done , ” she says , her voice breaking .
“ This is too much right now .
They ’ re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that , for them , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it mattered , it would have mattered to them before .
It shouldn ’ t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it .
“ It ’ s an opportunity for them to pretend they ’ re not racist or pretend this means something to them , ” she adds .
“ If it did , they would ’ ve done some research .
And I ’ m not happy about that .
You found me on Spotify easily — why couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know if [ the new Lady A ] are going to give me a cease-and-desist .
I don ’ t know how they ’ d react .
But I ’ m not about to stop using my name , ” White says .
“ For them to not even reach out is pure privilege .
I ’ m not going to lay down and let this happen to me .
But now the burden of proof is on me to prove that my name is in fact mine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much I ’ ll have to spend to keep it.
” White had been working on a song lately about George Floyd ’ s death , only to have that interrupted by news of a famous white band stealing her name .
No exaggeration : One of the worst PR fiascos I ’ ve ever seen .
I don ’ t know how you could invent something worse unless “ Lady A ” turned out be a famous Klansman or something .
All that ’ s left now is for White to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sucks and Is Racist ” and have it go to number one .
Maybe it ’ ll even become a sort of anthem for the protests .
Rolling Stone ’ s article goes through some rigmarole about trademark law and who might sue whom or whatever , but it would be tantamount to career suicide for Lady Antebellum to compound this catastrophe by using their wealth to strongarm a lesser-known black artist in court into giving up something that belonged to her first .
God , I can ’ t even imagine how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please , I beg them , back off and either revert to Lady Antebellum or come up with something else .
“ Lady Privilege , ” maybe ?
“ Lady Redneck But Sorry About It ” ?
Robert George suggests “ Lady Day , ” which rhymes with “ Lady A ” and has a pleasant sound .
Surely no black artist has ever used that name before .

This feels like the start of a comedy skit in which they keep changing their name to make it progressively more distinct and absurd, only to find each time that there’s already another musical act using that name.
“Lady A”? A black blues singer from Seattle. “Lady Confederacy”? An all-female death-metal band from Nashville. “Lady War Of Northern Aggression”? A middle-aged dude who produces chillwave in his basement in New Mexico.
Just plain “Lady”? A lounge act featuring two sisters from Topeka.
They should have taken my advice yesterday and renamed themselves “Lady Antifa,” which would have been maximum woke. Although there’s probably an EDM act somewhere called that.
Think about what an unholy, almost impossible PR fiasco this has turned out to be. No one really cared that they called themselves Lady Antebellum; the word “antebellum” is a weighty choice for a southern band but they’ve explained repeatedly that it has nothing to do with sympathy for the Confederacy. No one thinks they’re white supremacists or anything. But they wanted to signal their virtue at a moment of high solidarity across races against racism so they declared yesterday that henceforth they’d drop the “Antebellum” and be known by their fans’ nickname for them, “Lady A.” It was a PR move.
Look what’s become of it. It would have been bad but not terrible if there turned out to be another artist called “Lady A.” It would have been terrible but not hoo-boy-awful if that artist happened to be black. It would have been hoo-boy-awful but not an apocalyptic disaster if that black artist objected but recognized their good intentions. What they ended up with here, against all odds, was the apocalyptic disaster scenario: Appropriating the name of a black artist who’s now accusing them … of white privilege.
They should apologize immediately, drop “Lady A,” and adopt my new preferred name for them, Lady Plantation Nostalgia.
[Anita] White tells Rolling Stone she’s frustrated that Lady Antebellum hadn’t gone to her before making a decision, pointing out the irony in changing a name in support of racial equality while simultaneously taking another one from a black performer. “This is my life. Lady A is my brand, I’ve used it for over 20 years, and I’m proud of what I’ve done,” she says, her voice breaking. “This is too much right now. They’re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time. If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn’t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it. “It’s an opportunity for them to pretend they’re not racist or pretend this means something to them,” she adds. “If it did, they would’ve done some research. And I’m not happy about that. You found me on Spotify easily — why couldn’t they?”… “I don’t know if [the new Lady A] are going to give me a cease-and-desist. I don’t know how they’d react. But I’m not about to stop using my name,” White says. “For them to not even reach out is pure privilege. I’m not going to lay down and let this happen to me. But now the burden of proof is on me to prove that my name is in fact mine, and I don’t even know how much I’ll have to spend to keep it.”
White had been working on a song lately about George Floyd’s death, only to have that interrupted by news of a famous white band stealing her name.
No exaggeration: One of the worst PR fiascos I’ve ever seen. I don’t know how you could invent something worse unless “Lady A” turned out be a famous Klansman or something. All that’s left now is for White to write a song called “Lady Antebellum Sucks and Is Racist” and have it go to number one.
Maybe it’ll even become a sort of anthem for the protests.
Rolling Stone’s article goes through some rigmarole about trademark law and who might sue whom or whatever, but it would be tantamount to career suicide for Lady Antebellum to compound this catastrophe by using their wealth to strongarm a lesser-known black artist in court into giving up something that belonged to her first.
God, I can’t even imagine how insufferable the thinkpieces about that would be. Please, I beg them, back off and either revert to Lady Antebellum or come up with something else. “Lady Privilege,” maybe? “Lady Redneck But Sorry About It”?
Robert George suggests “Lady Day,” which rhymes with “Lady A” and has a pleasant sound. Surely no black artist has ever used that name before.


hotair--2020-06-12--Matt Yglesias, Wesley Lowery, Walter Cronkite and ethics in journalism

There has been a lot of talk about ethics in journalism in the wake of the NY Times ’ decision to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton .
There was an internal backlash against the publication and after initially backing it , the Times later reversed course and said it was a mistake .
The editor of the Times editorial page resigned in the wake of the reversal .
NY Times columnist Bari Weiss said there was a civil war taking place between the woke left and the more traditionally liberal journalists at the paper .
As the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News has published a takedown of “ America ’ s leading media ethicist ” whose name is Kelly McBride .
The piece points out that McBride has put herself at odds with many media progressives at the New Republic , Vox and the Washington Post over the NY Times ’ decision to publish Cotton ’ s op-ed : The piece quickly signals that McBride is wrong about that : There ’ s obviously a big difference between something the U.S. has done several times before ( and which polls showed a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But if your goal is to ridicule the argument , I guess cannibalism is where you go .
Later the same piece attempts to argue that McBride ’ s entire view of ethics makes no sense and points to Wesley Lowery as a journalist who takes a different perspective : Over the course of her time as the industry ’ s most established ethicist , the world has changed around her .
Journalists from across the industry are challenging longstanding conventions of objectivity and neutrality .
Wesley Lowery , a reporter for CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s National Advisory Board , has been openly scornful of the rules by which journalists have long lived .
“ American view-from-nowhere , ‘ objectivity ’ -obsessed , both-sides journalism is a failed experiment , ” Lowery recently tweeted .
“ We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field .
The old way must go.
” The idea that journalists should be open about the fact that everything they do is the result of a choice , and prioritize doing what ’ s right over being seen as “ objective ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a euphemism for advancing the interests of power , and especially of white people—is ascendent .
In many ways , McBride ’ s down-the-middle , please-everyone approach feels like a representation of a worldview that ’ s lost its legitimacy .
I have a very different perspective from Wesley Lowery but I partly agree with what he ’ s saying here .
I think it ’ s true that “ down the middle ” journalism has been a pretty spectacular failure for the past 60 years , at least since the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newsman when in fact he was always a partisan disguising his real motives : After Cronkite had belatedly turned against LBJ ’ s Vietnam War , he met privately with Robert Kennedy .
“ You must announce your intention to run against Johnson , to show people there will be a way out of this terrible war , ” he said in Kennedy ’ s Senate office .
Soon afterward , Cronkite got an exclusive interview in which Kennedy left the door open for a possible run—the very candidacy that the anchor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy announced three days later . )
I am shaking my head at the spectacle of a network anchor secretly urging a politician to mount a White House campaign—and then interviewing him about that very question .
This was duplicitous , a major breach of trust… In what would likely be deemed a firing offense today , Cronkite blatantly manipulated an interview with LBJ shortly before Johnson died .
According to Brinkley , his producer spliced the footage in unflattering ways , reshooting Cronkite asking the questions so it appeared that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Johnson talked about Vietnam .
LBJ saw a rough cut and pronounced it “ dirty pool ” ; I would call it a video version of lying .
Under pressure from the former president ’ s team , CBS undid the misleading editing , so the public never learned of the deception .
So if you wonder where Samantha Bee got her dishonest progressive shtick , she got it from Walter Cronkite .
While I agree with Lowery that this has largely been a failed experiment , I ’ m sure we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reason it failed is that most of the people pretending to be down the middle reporters were in fact liberals claiming a guise of neutrality when it suited them and using their positions to advance the cause when it didn ’ t .
In other words it failed because the progressives who make up the bulk of the industry couldn ’ t actually behave ethically .
I know Wesley Lowery wouldn ’ t agree with that because he commented on the Vice piece on Twitter , saying that young journalists are tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid inviting criticism .
He got some push back from Vox ’ s Matt Yglesias : In other words , what if “ telling the truth ” actually turns out to be doing sloppy PR work for democratic socialists or Bernie Sanders or whatever else .
Isn ’ t there a need for some recognition that “ telling the truth ” depends where you are standing and therefore it makes sense to be aware of where other people are standing because they may see it differently .
Lowery pleaded ignorance : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fang controversy but very briefly , he ’ s a far left writer for the Intercept who made the mistake of saying on Twitter that people on the left were taking Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s comments about riots out of context .
And that brought a huge backlash from people including at his own site .
He eventually issued an apology .
You can read more about it here .
But Yglesias is basically saying that this pile on of a reasonable point shows there are people who are more concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lowery ’ s response to that is pretty astounding : So instead of acknowledging that there can be bad media actors on the left and instead of criticizing a mob pile on of a left-wing journalist , Lowery simply goes straight to you mean that guy who tweets racist stuff ?
Forget discussion .
Forget nuance .
Lowery doesn ’ t even need to know the details which he again claims to have missed .
He just dismisses it all with an allegation of racism and done .
And , as intended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discussion .
Wesley Lowery appears to be one of the bad actors Yglesias was talking about .
Lowery may have a point about fake , down the middle journalism but the fact he can ’ t admit there ’ s a problem on his side of the aisle , and that “ telling the truth ” can become cover for ignoring other valid perspectives , is a big problem .
God help us all when Matt Yglesias is the voice of reason in this debate .

There has been a lot of talk about ethics in journalism in the wake of the NY Times’ decision to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton. There was an internal backlash against the publication and after initially backing it, the Times later reversed course and said it was a mistake. The editor of the Times editorial page resigned in the wake of the reversal. NY Times columnist Bari Weiss said there was a civil war taking place between the woke left and the more traditionally liberal journalists at the paper.
The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same. (Thread.) — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
As the debate over ethics in journalism continues, Vice News has published a takedown of “America’s leading media ethicist” whose name is Kelly McBride. The piece points out that McBride has put herself at odds with many media progressives at the New Republic, Vox and the Washington Post over the NY Times’ decision to publish Cotton’s op-ed:
The day after the op-ed was published, Kelly McBride, America’s foremost expert on media ethics, shared with me a very different opinion, more in line with that of the people inside and outside the Times decrying the episode as a triumph of “safetyism.” McBride wouldn’t have published it had she been in charge of the section, she said, because it was “crappy” and “intellectually dishonest.” As she saw it, though, publishing controversial and unpopular arguments, like one that the government should use military force to deny protesters the ability to exercise First Amendment rights, is important in order to ensure a robust “marketplace of ideas.”
The piece quickly signals that McBride is wrong about that:
By this logic, of course, the Times is unjustly denying the public the ability to debate the virtues of cannibalism, or of the United States becoming a Communist state, or whether people killed in mass shootings are really crisis actors, or any number of other unpopular ideas whose adherents aren’t given some of the limited space available in its Opinion section.
There’s obviously a big difference between something the U.S. has done several times before (and which polls showed a majority of Americans would support) and cannibalism. But if your goal is to ridicule the argument, I guess cannibalism is where you go.
Later the same piece attempts to argue that McBride’s entire view of ethics makes no sense and points to Wesley Lowery as a journalist who takes a different perspective:
Over the course of her time as the industry’s most established ethicist, the world has changed around her. Journalists from across the industry are challenging longstanding conventions of objectivity and neutrality. Wesley Lowery, a reporter for CBS and a former member of Poynter’s National Advisory Board, has been openly scornful of the rules by which journalists have long lived. “American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” Lowery recently tweeted. “We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go.” The idea that journalists should be open about the fact that everything they do is the result of a choice, and prioritize doing what’s right over being seen as “objective”—objectivity itself being, in this context, a euphemism for advancing the interests of power, and especially of white people—is ascendent. In many ways, McBride’s down-the-middle, please-everyone approach feels like a representation of a worldview that’s lost its legitimacy.
I have a very different perspective from Wesley Lowery but I partly agree with what he’s saying here. I think it’s true that “down the middle” journalism has been a pretty spectacular failure for the past 60 years, at least since the time of Walter Cronkite who was idolized as a newsman when in fact he was always a partisan disguising his real motives:
After Cronkite had belatedly turned against LBJ’s Vietnam War, he met privately with Robert Kennedy. “You must announce your intention to run against Johnson, to show people there will be a way out of this terrible war,” he said in Kennedy’s Senate office. Soon afterward, Cronkite got an exclusive interview in which Kennedy left the door open for a possible run—the very candidacy that the anchor had urged him to undertake. (Kennedy announced three days later.) I am shaking my head at the spectacle of a network anchor secretly urging a politician to mount a White House campaign—and then interviewing him about that very question. This was duplicitous, a major breach of trust… In what would likely be deemed a firing offense today, Cronkite blatantly manipulated an interview with LBJ shortly before Johnson died. According to Brinkley, his producer spliced the footage in unflattering ways, reshooting Cronkite asking the questions so it appeared that he was nodding or raising his eyebrows in disgust when Johnson talked about Vietnam. LBJ saw a rough cut and pronounced it “dirty pool”; I would call it a video version of lying. Under pressure from the former president’s team, CBS undid the misleading editing, so the public never learned of the deception.
So if you wonder where Samantha Bee got her dishonest progressive shtick, she got it from Walter Cronkite. While I agree with Lowery that this has largely been a failed experiment, I’m sure we disagree about why. I would say the reason it failed is that most of the people pretending to be down the middle reporters were in fact liberals claiming a guise of neutrality when it suited them and using their positions to advance the cause when it didn’t. In other words it failed because the progressives who make up the bulk of the industry couldn’t actually behave ethically.
I know Wesley Lowery wouldn’t agree with that because he commented on the Vice piece on Twitter, saying that young journalists are tired of hearing from editors that they need to avoid inviting criticism. He got some push back from Vox’s Matt Yglesias:
perhaps biggest divide in journalism is between generation of editors who take as gospel the need to avoid anything that anyone *could* criticize & young journalists who just want to tell the truth without consideration of how bad faith actors will attack https://t.co/ZpWtS2FV5v — Wesley (@WesleyLowery) June 12, 2020
In other words, what if “telling the truth” actually turns out to be doing sloppy PR work for democratic socialists or Bernie Sanders or whatever else. Isn’t there a need for some recognition that “telling the truth” depends where you are standing and therefore it makes sense to be aware of where other people are standing because they may see it differently. Lowery pleaded ignorance:
I genuinely don't know who you are referring to — Wesley (@WesleyLowery) June 12, 2020
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1271441184238559234
I won’t explain the whole Lee Fang controversy but very briefly, he’s a far left writer for the Intercept who made the mistake of saying on Twitter that people on the left were taking Martin Luther King Jr.’s comments about riots out of context. And that brought a huge backlash from people including at his own site. He eventually issued an apology. You can read more about it here. But Yglesias is basically saying that this pile on of a reasonable point shows there are people who are more concerned with advancing a narrative than the truth. Lowery’s response to that is pretty astounding:
I missed that. Was it cause he tweeted something racist again or…? — Wesley (@WesleyLowery) June 12, 2020
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1271441556181069824
So instead of acknowledging that there can be bad media actors on the left and instead of criticizing a mob pile on of a left-wing journalist, Lowery simply goes straight to you mean that guy who tweets racist stuff? Forget discussion. Forget nuance. Lowery doesn’t even need to know the details which he again claims to have missed. He just dismisses it all with an allegation of racism and done. And, as intended, that’s the end of the discussion.
Wesley Lowery appears to be one of the bad actors Yglesias was talking about. Lowery may have a point about fake, down the middle journalism but the fact he can’t admit there’s a problem on his side of the aisle, and that “telling the truth” can become cover for ignoring other valid perspectives, is a big problem. God help us all when Matt Yglesias is the voice of reason in this debate.


hotair--2020-06-12--Seattle mayor, PD chief to CHAZ: Let's make a deal ...? City council member: Let 'em have it! <span

Seattle mayor, PD chief to CHAZ: Let's make a deal ...? City council member: Let 'em have it! Update: PD planning to retake precinct?

A deal with … whom , exactly ?
Raz Simone , the alleged “ warlord ” of Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ?
People ’ s Party politician Nikkita Oliver ?
“ I ’ m not the leader , ” she told KOMO this morning , which leaves Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan and police chief Carmen Best with no one to discuss disbanding the CHAZ .
And that ’ s precisely what they want : City officials are trying to quickly broker a deal but because there is no centralized leadership among protesters , getting all the voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nikkita Oliver is a community activist with a long history in Seattle .
She showed up to the East Precinct Thursday to lend her support to protesters .
She said she has no idea when marchers will actually leave .
“ I ’ m not the leader , ” Oliver said .
“ So I can ’ t answer a question I ’ m not making the decisions on.
” David Lewis , who co-led some of the earlier marches from West Lake Park , said the next move is unclear .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission , ” Lewis said .
That does make it a wee bit difficult to negotiate , but it ’ s a dodge to some extent , too .
Perhaps a too-aggressive assertion of leadership would create a fracture and collapse within CHAZ , but at the very least , the people with credible threat of force are running the show .
That includes armed activists as well as those with the ability to whip up mob action , as seen in Julio Rosas ’ video of the forced ejection of a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of centralized leadership makes it difficult to get any coherent list of demands , too .
Those run from a list of five to 30 or more demands , each more outrageous than the last : According to the movement ’ s demands , people of color who are still serving sentences for violent crimes must be given a retrial , and all prisoners must be given the full and unrestricted right to vote .
… Other Free Capitol Hill demands include reforms to education that increase the focus on black and Native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reallocating funds from the Seattle Police Department to socialized health and medicine , free public housing , public education and naturalization services .
… Along with major changes to the criminal justice system , the Free Capitol Hill movement ’ s list of demands call for Seattle hospital and health care facilities to employ black doctors and nurses to help care for black patients .
In addition to the creation of a more diversified workforce , studies show increased positive health outcomes for black patients who are treated by black doctors .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Plus ça change , plus c ’ est la même chose … Another difficulty in negotiating would be leaders who don ’ t mind ceding five blocks of the city to anarchy .
Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant , last seen pushing the city ’ s abortive “ head tax ” on corporations like Amazon , would prefer to see Durkan and Best simply surrender to the CHAZ mob as a “ victory ” for community control : As the Seattle Police Department works to broker a deal with protesters occupying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Hill , a Seattle City Councilmember said the area known as “ CHAZ ” should remain in community control permanently .
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone , known as “ CHAZ , ” has been in community control since Tuesday , when Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best decreased the officers ’ presence in the East Precinct to allow for peaceful protests .
Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant called the “ CHAZ ” movement a major victory .
She said the area should be turned over permanently into community control , instead of back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department .
To call this nonsense is hardly strong enough .
Seattle and this five-block area has been under “ community control ” for as long as its democratically elected government has existed .
Sawant sits on the very body that controls Seattle , including its policing , and has all the authority and jurisdiction it needs to regulate it .
CHAZ isn ’ t “ community control , ” it ’ s mob rule .
It ’ s insane to conflate the two under any circumstances , but to have a city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idiocy of the people who elected Sawant to that position .
Don ’ t expect the mob to give up its rule willingly , either .
Most if not all of their demands are non-starters either legally , politically , or both .
The longer it takes , the more likely that serious violence will start to break out — and then Durkan and Gov .
Jay Inslee will have to decide whether they will impose order , or whether Donald Trump will .
Update : Time is running out for retaking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 911 call response times are too long without the police precinct base : Not to mention the ticking Trump timer…

A deal with … whom, exactly? Raz Simone, the alleged “warlord” of Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone? People’s Party politician Nikkita Oliver? “I’m not the leader,” she told KOMO this morning, which leaves Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan and police chief Carmen Best with no one to discuss disbanding the CHAZ. And that’s precisely what they want:
City officials are trying to quickly broker a deal but because there is no centralized leadership among protesters, getting all the voices at the table remains a challenge. Nikkita Oliver is a community activist with a long history in Seattle. She showed up to the East Precinct Thursday to lend her support to protesters. She said she has no idea when marchers will actually leave. “I’m not the leader,” Oliver said. “So I can’t answer a question I’m not making the decisions on.” David Lewis, who co-led some of the earlier marches from West Lake Park, said the next move is unclear. “Every single person here has their own mission,” Lewis said.
That does make it a wee bit difficult to negotiate, but it’s a dodge to some extent, too. Perhaps a too-aggressive assertion of leadership would create a fracture and collapse within CHAZ, but at the very least, the people with credible threat of force are running the show. That includes armed activists as well as those with the ability to whip up mob action, as seen in Julio Rosas’ video of the forced ejection of a young man from CHAZ yesterday.
The lack of centralized leadership makes it difficult to get any coherent list of demands, too. Those run from a list of five to 30 or more demands, each more outrageous than the last:
According to the movement’s demands, people of color who are still serving sentences for violent crimes must be given a retrial, and all prisoners must be given the full and unrestricted right to vote. … Other Free Capitol Hill demands include reforms to education that increase the focus on black and Native American history, free college, and reallocating funds from the Seattle Police Department to socialized health and medicine, free public housing, public education and naturalization services. … Along with major changes to the criminal justice system, the Free Capitol Hill movement’s list of demands call for Seattle hospital and health care facilities to employ black doctors and nurses to help care for black patients. In addition to the creation of a more diversified workforce, studies show increased positive health outcomes for black patients who are treated by black doctors.
So … yay, segregation? Good Lord. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose …
Another difficulty in negotiating would be leaders who don’t mind ceding five blocks of the city to anarchy. Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant, last seen pushing the city’s abortive “head tax” on corporations like Amazon, would prefer to see Durkan and Best simply surrender to the CHAZ mob as a “victory” for community control:
As the Seattle Police Department works to broker a deal with protesters occupying an autonomous zone in the heart of Capitol Hill, a Seattle City Councilmember said the area known as “CHAZ” should remain in community control permanently. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, known as “CHAZ,” has been in community control since Tuesday, when Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best decreased the officers’ presence in the East Precinct to allow for peaceful protests. Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant called the “CHAZ” movement a major victory. She said the area should be turned over permanently into community control, instead of back in the hands of the Seattle Police Department.
To call this nonsense is hardly strong enough. Seattle and this five-block area has been under “community control” for as long as its democratically elected government has existed. Sawant sits on the very body that controls Seattle, including its policing, and has all the authority and jurisdiction it needs to regulate it. CHAZ isn’t “community control,” it’s mob rule. It’s insane to conflate the two under any circumstances, but to have a city council member do so reflects the long-standing idiocy of the people who elected Sawant to that position.
Don’t expect the mob to give up its rule willingly, either. Most if not all of their demands are non-starters either legally, politically, or both. The longer it takes, the more likely that serious violence will start to break out — and then Durkan and Gov. Jay Inslee will have to decide whether they will impose order, or whether Donald Trump will.
Update: Time is running out for retaking the precinct, KOMO reports today, as 911 call response times are too long without the police precinct base:
Not to mention the ticking Trump timer…


hotair--2020-06-12--Poll: Roughly two-thirds of Americans oppose defunding the police -- but a majority of Dems support

Poll: Roughly two-thirds of Americans oppose defunding the police -- but a majority of Dems support doing so

Trump should be tweeting out this poll every hour on the hour .
That ’ s how useful it is to him politically .
If nothing else , it ’ d give him something to talk about apart from crying over how disrespectful people are to dead Confederates .
There ’ s a reason Joe Biden , James Clyburn , and various other senior Dems have scrambled to tamp down the “ defund the police ” talk : It ’ s bananas , and most Americans recognize it as bananas .
But not most of Biden ’ s and Clyburn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been looking for a way to claw back some of the senior citizens who ’ ve drifted into Biden ’ s camp over the last few months , right ?
Well , there it is on a silver platter .
Note that “ defund the police ” wasn ’ t the only option that ABC/Ipsos offered to people who took its poll .
They also asked about reducing the police ’ s budget and reallocating some funds to other social services .
That ’ s been the spin from establishment Dems like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defund the police ” really just means “ give some of the police ’ s money to other state bureaucracies.
” But reducing the police budget also polled poorly here , 39/60 .
And it says something about Democratic radicalism at the moment that , even with that moderate option available to them as an alternative , 55 percent still said yes to “ defunding ” the police .
But don ’ t miss the forest for the trees .
HuffPost and YouGov also polled this week on defunding the police : Again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats more or less evenly split .
( In this case there were slightly more Dems who opposed the idea than favored it , a split of 41/45 . )
The salient fact , though , is that defunding the police is the *only* police reform that most of the country opposes .
Majorities , in some cases big bipartisan majorities , are willing to support a lot of changes to how the police do business .
Every reform polled apart from defunding the police drew at least plurality support .
Ending qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled out by Trump , is polling at +32 , with nearly 60 percent in favor .
These are no fluke results either .
A third poll out today , this one from Reuters , also asked Americans how they ’ re feeling about police reforms and found huge majorities in favor of various proposals .
That includes Republicans : According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll , rank-and-file Republicans appear to be mostly supportive of the proposals Democratic lawmakers in Congress unveiled on June 8 .
The legislation followed Floyd ’ s May 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes .
According to the poll , six out 10 Republicans supported a provision that would allow “ victims of police misconduct to sue police departments for damages.
” Seven in 10 Republicans support bans on racial profiling and chokeholds .
Nine in 10 Republicans agree that police should wear body cameras and the same proportion agreed that law enforcement agencies should be open to independent investigations .
Overall three-quarters of Americans support allowing people to sue police departments if they ’ ve been subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background for this NYT story about Trump ’ s disconnect from not just the national mood but the *Republican* mood in the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing and mass protests .
He ’ s authoritarian by nature ; “ law and order ” is a message he ’ s very comfortable with , and which may pay big political dividends for him yet depending on how hairy things get in the CHAZ and beyond .
Even in normal times , unconditional ( or barely conditional ) support for the police is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impress his base and win over swing voters .
But these aren ’ t normal times .
His hardcore base will back him on whatever but less Trump-devout Republicans are clearly open to reform .
Trump either doesn ’ t grasp that or he can ’ t bring himself to steer away from his core supporters even when it ’ s to his benefit to do so .
Mr. Trump has portrayed protesters as “ terrorists ” and extremists while praising most law enforcement officers as “ great people.
” Yet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 57 percent of Americans — including a majority of white people — said the anger that led to the protests was completely justified .
Even among self-described conservatives , 65 percent said the protesters ’ frustrations were at least somewhat justified… What ’ s remarkable to a number of people across the political spectrum is that Mr. Trump seems to be missing what is all but screaming in neon — clear in everything from the diverse makeup of the protesters to the legions of people sending anti-racist books to the top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just black people , ” DeJuana Thompson , an Alabama-based activist who just returned home from marching in Minneapolis and Louisville , said of her experience .
“ This is a clarifying moment for our country , and people are being asked to come out of our comfort zones.
” It wasn ’ t just black people .
Still , “ defund the police ” is overreach and the “ Autonomous Zone ” in Seattle is a disaster in the making .
Those are gifts to Trump .
Whether he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much political momentum either idea gets .
Senior citizens are watching .

Trump should be tweeting out this poll every hour on the hour. That’s how useful it is to him politically.
If nothing else, it’d give him something to talk about apart from crying over how disrespectful people are to dead Confederates.
There’s a reason Joe Biden, James Clyburn, and various other senior Dems have scrambled to tamp down the “defund the police” talk: It’s bananas, and most Americans recognize it as bananas.
But not most of Biden’s and Clyburn’s own party.
Trump’s been looking for a way to claw back some of the senior citizens who’ve drifted into Biden’s camp over the last few months, right? Well, there it is on a silver platter.
Note that “defund the police” wasn’t the only option that ABC/Ipsos offered to people who took its poll. They also asked about reducing the police’s budget and reallocating some funds to other social services. That’s been the spin from establishment Dems like Kamala Harris all week, that “defund the police” really just means “give some of the police’s money to other state bureaucracies.” But reducing the police budget also polled poorly here, 39/60.
And it says something about Democratic radicalism at the moment that, even with that moderate option available to them as an alternative, 55 percent still said yes to “defunding” the police.
But don’t miss the forest for the trees. HuffPost and YouGov also polled this week on defunding the police: Again, they found Americans strongly opposed and Democrats more or less evenly split. (In this case there were slightly more Dems who opposed the idea than favored it, a split of 41/45.) The salient fact, though, is that defunding the police is the *only* police reform that most of the country opposes. Majorities, in some cases big bipartisan majorities, are willing to support a lot of changes to how the police do business.
Every reform polled apart from defunding the police drew at least plurality support. Ending qualified immunity for officers, a reform already ruled out by Trump, is polling at +32, with nearly 60 percent in favor. These are no fluke results either. A third poll out today, this one from Reuters, also asked Americans how they’re feeling about police reforms and found huge majorities in favor of various proposals. That includes Republicans:
According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll, rank-and-file Republicans appear to be mostly supportive of the proposals Democratic lawmakers in Congress unveiled on June 8. The legislation followed Floyd’s May 25 death in Minneapolis, where a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. According to the poll, six out 10 Republicans supported a provision that would allow “victims of police misconduct to sue police departments for damages.” Seven in 10 Republicans support bans on racial profiling and chokeholds. Nine in 10 Republicans agree that police should wear body cameras and the same proportion agreed that law enforcement agencies should be open to independent investigations.
Overall three-quarters of Americans support allowing people to sue police departments if they’ve been subject to misconduct.
All of this is background for this NYT story about Trump’s disconnect from not just the national mood but the *Republican* mood in the wake of George Floyd’s killing and mass protests. He’s authoritarian by nature; “law and order” is a message he’s very comfortable with, and which may pay big political dividends for him yet depending on how hairy things get in the CHAZ and beyond. Even in normal times, unconditional (or barely conditional) support for the police is a solid bet for a Republican pol to impress his base and win over swing voters. But these aren’t normal times. His hardcore base will back him on whatever but less Trump-devout Republicans are clearly open to reform. Trump either doesn’t grasp that or he can’t bring himself to steer away from his core supporters even when it’s to his benefit to do so.
2) People who voted for Trump in 2016 but are now somewhat skeptical are quite defensive of his record on the economy and even corona. But they HATE how he handles race. This isn't mild "he should watch what he says a bit more" disagreement. They RECOIL from his divisiveness. — Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) June 12, 2020
From the Times piece:
Mr. Trump has portrayed protesters as “terrorists” and extremists while praising most law enforcement officers as “great people.” Yet in a Monmouth University poll released last week, 57 percent of Americans — including a majority of white people — said the anger that led to the protests was completely justified. Even among self-described conservatives, 65 percent said the protesters’ frustrations were at least somewhat justified… What’s remarkable to a number of people across the political spectrum is that Mr. Trump seems to be missing what is all but screaming in neon — clear in everything from the diverse makeup of the protesters to the legions of people sending anti-racist books to the top of best seller lists. “It wasn’t just black people,” DeJuana Thompson, an Alabama-based activist who just returned home from marching in Minneapolis and Louisville, said of her experience. “This is a clarifying moment for our country, and people are being asked to come out of our comfort zones.”
It wasn’t just black people. Still, “defund the police” is overreach and the “Autonomous Zone” in Seattle is a disaster in the making. Those are gifts to Trump. Whether he can convert them into votes will depend on how much political momentum either idea gets. Senior citizens are watching.


hotair--2020-06-12--Chait: Progressive data analyst was fired for citing research that riots hurt Democratic vote totals

Writing at New York Magazine , Jonathan Chait relates the story of a young data analyst named David Shor .
Shor is apparently a social democrat , i.e .
someone from the left wing of the party who is more likely to be a Sanders supporter than , say , a Joe Biden fan .
Last month when protests were starting to get more violent , Shor tweeted this : The research isn ’ t his .
He ’ s citing Princeton professor Omar Wasow and , according to Chait , he ’ s citing the conclusions of the research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a data driven argument that riots hurt Democrats at the polls while peaceful protests help them at the polls .
That observation didn ’ t go over well with a lot of people .
One of the people who complained accused Shor of “ anti-blackness.
” Ari Trujillo Wesler , the founder of OpenField , a Democratic canvassing app , replied , “ This take is tone deaf , removes responsibility for depressed turnout from the 68 Party , and reeks of anti-blackness.
” … Trujillo Wesler repeated the accusation of racism ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety and ‘ intellect ’ as a vehicle for anti-blackness ” ) , and then tagged Dan Wager , the CEO of Civis Analytics , the firm employing Shor , “ Come get your boy.
” At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor ’ s tweet threatened their safety .
Shor issued an apology for not being an “ effective messenger ” but couldn ’ t really apologize for the research since a ) it wasn ’ t his and b ) no one had claimed it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a review of the incident Civis Analytics took the side of the mob and fired Shor .
Here ’ s Chait ’ s conclusion on the incident : “ The preconditions that permitted these events to go forward are the spread of distinct , illiberal norms throughout some progressive institutions over the last half-dozen years.
” He argues that the right is still a far greater threat to liberalism than the left but says that doesn ’ t mean the illiberalism of the left should be ignored .
I would disagree with Chait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less of a threat .
Historically that ’ s certainly not the case when you look at the death toll associated with far left states ( Russia , China , Cambodia etc . )
The usual excuse offered is that those states were authoritarian and therefore not real socialism .
This refusal to acknowledge reality is a way for the left to avoid the obvious truth : Left wing extremism is dangerous and often ends in authoritarianism precisely because it concentrates power in the hands of the state even as it downplay the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a perfect recipe for authoritarianism .
And that ’ s why , as the left is having another national moment in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death , you ’ re also seeing an outbreak of cancel culture .
In fact , Chait looks at two more examples of this in his piece .
There are many more examples he could have cited in just the past two weeks .
Illiberalism isn ’ t a bug that crops up coincidentally when the left is ascendant , it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong opinions is what the far left does .
We ’ ve all seen it play out on campus , now we ’ re seeing it in the broader world .

Writing at New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait relates the story of a young data analyst named David Shor. Shor is apparently a social democrat, i.e. someone from the left wing of the party who is more likely to be a Sanders supporter than, say, a Joe Biden fan. Last month when protests were starting to get more violent, Shor tweeted this:
Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. https://t.co/S8VZSuaz3G. pic.twitter.com/VRUwnRFuVW — (((David Shor))) (@davidshor) May 28, 2020
The research isn’t his. He’s citing Princeton professor Omar Wasow and, according to Chait, he’s citing the conclusions of the research accurately. Simply put, this is a data driven argument that riots hurt Democrats at the polls while peaceful protests help them at the polls. That observation didn’t go over well with a lot of people. One of the people who complained accused Shor of “anti-blackness.”
Ari Trujillo Wesler, the founder of OpenField, a Democratic canvassing app, replied, “This take is tone deaf, removes responsibility for depressed turnout from the 68 Party, and reeks of anti-blackness.”… Trujillo Wesler repeated the accusation of racism (“YOU need to stop using your anxiety and ‘intellect’ as a vehicle for anti-blackness”), and then tagged Dan Wager, the CEO of Civis Analytics, the firm employing Shor, “Come get your boy.” At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety.
Shor issued an apology for not being an “effective messenger” but couldn’t really apologize for the research since a) it wasn’t his and b) no one had claimed it was wrong. Despite the apology, after a review of the incident Civis Analytics took the side of the mob and fired Shor. Here’s Chait’s conclusion on the incident: “The preconditions that permitted these events to go forward are the spread of distinct, illiberal norms throughout some progressive institutions over the last half-dozen years.” He argues that the right is still a far greater threat to liberalism than the left but says that doesn’t mean the illiberalism of the left should be ignored.
I would disagree with Chait that the illiberalism of the left is less of a threat. Historically that’s certainly not the case when you look at the death toll associated with far left states (Russia, China, Cambodia etc.) The usual excuse offered is that those states were authoritarian and therefore not real socialism. This refusal to acknowledge reality is a way for the left to avoid the obvious truth: Left wing extremism is dangerous and often ends in authoritarianism precisely because it concentrates power in the hands of the state even as it downplay the importance of the individual. It’s a perfect recipe for authoritarianism.
And that’s why, as the left is having another national moment in the wake of George Floyd’s death, you’re also seeing an outbreak of cancel culture. In fact, Chait looks at two more examples of this in his piece. There are many more examples he could have cited in just the past two weeks. Illiberalism isn’t a bug that crops up coincidentally when the left is ascendant, it’s a feature. Harassing and firing people for wrong opinions is what the far left does. We’ve all seen it play out on campus, now we’re seeing it in the broader world.


hotair--2020-06-12--Is Texas experiencing a second wave of COVID-19 cases?

Today marks a new step in re-opening Texas businesses .
Restaurants can now expand their capacity to 75 % , up from 50 % capacity in the previous step of Phase 3 of re-opening the state .
Along with that good news comes the bad – local officials are delivering messages of doom and gloom about the possibility that Texas is experiencing a second wave of COVID-19 infections .
The national media is eagerly reporting on a pattern of increasing cases in some states that have been at the forefront of re-opening , such as Texas .
But is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is not as clear yet as the Eeyores would have you think .
The number of hospitalizations has hit a record high this week , with the end of the week finding sustained daily increases .
That is troubling but the increases haven ’ t overwhelmed the hospitals .
There are still ICU beds available in Houston , for example .
Dallas County is reporting a higher number of new cases being reported than Harris County , though the population of Dallas is smaller .
It has been three months since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected officials are concerned that the trend of new infections and hospitalizations is not looking good .
The new infections reported are likely due to increased activity over Memorial Day weekend .
The Houston area numbers are going in the wrong direction .
Pretty much all the numbers are moving in the wrong direction at this point , ” Dr. David Persse , director of the Houston Health Department , told KHOU 11 ’ s Jeremy Rogalsky on Tuesday .
“ We ’ ve seen an array of numbers that are all unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said president and CEO Dr. Marc Boom .
Daily COVID-19 hospitalizations in the Houston trauma service area hit back-to-back record highs Monday and Tuesday , with 614 and 622 cases , respectively , according to the Texas Department of State Health Services .
Daily new cases in the Greater Houston area began to spike two weeks ago , with the most ever in the region recorded Saturday with 835 .
In Harris County , which includes the city of Houston , 483 new cases were reported Saturday , the most since early April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 threat-level system .
Currently , the county is at Level 2 , with Level 1 being the highest level .
It means there is a significant threat and the coronavirus is uncontrolled .
The new system is meant to keep residents updated on the status of the virus .
It can also be used as justification for local officials to reimpose lockdown measures that have loosened under Governor Abbott ’ s orders .
The governor ’ s orders trump local orders but that won ’ t stop Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so she can tell everyone to stay home again .
“ We still have a long road ahead of us to end this epidemic , and we have to accept that life as usual probably won ’ t be returning anytime soon .
The only way out of this crisis is for the community to work together , ” Hidalgo said .
The system measures coronavirus threat on a numerical scale with Level 1/red representing the highest threat and Level 4/green being the lowest threat .
Hildalgo said we ’ re currently at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant threat and virus spread is uncontrolled despite state and local health efforts .
It ’ s advised residents have minimal contact with others .
The county said should the scale reach a Level 1 threat , it would mean the Houston area is experiencing an outbreak and it ’ s worsening .
Residents would be asked to stay home and minimize contact with others .
Hidalgo admits there are “ plenty ” of ICU hospital beds available .
A temporary hospital facility built at NRG Stadium to handle an overflow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of taxpayers and never used may be rebuilt if the need arises .
Taxpayers can be on the hook once again for that decision .
Both Mayor Turner and Hidalgo continue to stress the importance of wearing masks , social distancing , and avoiding large gatherings .
Unless it ’ s a Black Lives Matter protest or a funeral for a new civil rights hero , you know , then large gatherings are fine .
Some restaurants are closing after re-opening , due to employees testing positive for the coronavirus .
This puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just trying to hang on in this economy .
With an increase in capacity to 75 % allowed today , the number of restaurants who have to temporarily re-shutter again will likely increase due to a rise in infections among staff .
It ’ s going to be a bumpy process until a vaccine is available or medication is able to manage the disease .
My guess is that local officials will move to reimpose stay at home orders to mitigate the virus outbreak .
Note Hidalgo ’ s hyperbole – “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scary , right ?
She ’ ll get a lot of pushback , though , if she tries to shut down businesses again in the county .
All of these new stories coming out serve to add to the confusion of what everyone should do during this plague .
The guidelines of wearing masks , social distancing , and sticking with small gatherings are in effect yet here we are .
If we dig a bit into some of the stories of recent deaths from COVID-19 , we see that in Dallas County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported Thursday – a Dallas woman in her 50s , a man in his 60s , and a man in his 70s .
All were critically ill and already hospitalized , with underlying health conditions .
It ’ s hard to look at their deaths , tragic as they are , the same as new infections of otherwise healthy people .
Also interesting is something I heard last night on a local news broadcast – in Houston , the newest cases are coming from the 30-39-year-old age group .
The next biggest group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their 40s , then 20s , then 50s .
Are those people becoming infected as they go back to work or go out and socialize in public ?
I ’ ll tell you what I am doing – I ’ m staying at home as much as possible .
I wear a mask in public .
I also keep a distance from other people .
And , I wash my hands a lot , especially after returning home .
Ours is an at-risk house and this is all logical mitigation action to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks differently , so be it .
In the meantime , I hope enough of us do what we can to stop the spread of the virus .
The scientists and medical professionals have let us down .
No one is certain of much of anything these days .

Today marks a new step in re-opening Texas businesses. Restaurants can now expand their capacity to 75%, up from 50% capacity in the previous step of Phase 3 of re-opening the state. Along with that good news comes the bad – local officials are delivering messages of doom and gloom about the possibility that Texas is experiencing a second wave of COVID-19 infections.
The national media is eagerly reporting on a pattern of increasing cases in some states that have been at the forefront of re-opening, such as Texas. But is it as bad as some are reporting? That is not as clear yet as the Eeyores would have you think.
The number of hospitalizations has hit a record high this week, with the end of the week finding sustained daily increases. That is troubling but the increases haven’t overwhelmed the hospitals. There are still ICU beds available in Houston, for example. Dallas County is reporting a higher number of new cases being reported than Harris County, though the population of Dallas is smaller. It has been three months since the first case of COVID-19 was reported and elected officials are concerned that the trend of new infections and hospitalizations is not looking good.
The new infections reported are likely due to increased activity over Memorial Day weekend. The Houston area numbers are going in the wrong direction.
Pretty much all the numbers are moving in the wrong direction at this point,” Dr. David Persse, director of the Houston Health Department, told KHOU 11’s Jeremy Rogalsky on Tuesday. “We’ve seen an array of numbers that are all unfortunately going in the wrong direction,” said president and CEO Dr. Marc Boom. Daily COVID-19 hospitalizations in the Houston trauma service area hit back-to-back record highs Monday and Tuesday, with 614 and 622 cases, respectively, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services. Daily new cases in the Greater Houston area began to spike two weeks ago, with the most ever in the region recorded Saturday with 835. In Harris County, which includes the city of Houston, 483 new cases were reported Saturday, the most since early April.
Harris County officials have introduced a COVID-19 threat-level system. Currently, the county is at Level 2, with Level 1 being the highest level. It means there is a significant threat and the coronavirus is uncontrolled. The new system is meant to keep residents updated on the status of the virus. It can also be used as justification for local officials to reimpose lockdown measures that have loosened under Governor Abbott’s orders. The governor’s orders trump local orders but that won’t stop Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo from predictions of disaster on the horizon so she can tell everyone to stay home again.
“We still have a long road ahead of us to end this epidemic, and we have to accept that life as usual probably won’t be returning anytime soon. The only way out of this crisis is for the community to work together,” Hidalgo said. The system measures coronavirus threat on a numerical scale with Level 1/red representing the highest threat and Level 4/green being the lowest threat. Hildalgo said we’re currently at Level 2/orange, which means there is a significant threat and virus spread is uncontrolled despite state and local health efforts. It’s advised residents have minimal contact with others. Level 3/yellow represents a moderate but controlled threat. The county said should the scale reach a Level 1 threat, it would mean the Houston area is experiencing an outbreak and it’s worsening. Residents would be asked to stay home and minimize contact with others.
Hidalgo admits there are “plenty” of ICU hospital beds available. A temporary hospital facility built at NRG Stadium to handle an overflow of patients from area hospitals at the expense of taxpayers and never used may be rebuilt if the need arises. Taxpayers can be on the hook once again for that decision. Both Mayor Turner and Hidalgo continue to stress the importance of wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding large gatherings. Unless it’s a Black Lives Matter protest or a funeral for a new civil rights hero, you know, then large gatherings are fine.
Some restaurants are closing after re-opening, due to employees testing positive for the coronavirus. This puts more stress on business owners who are just trying to hang on in this economy. With an increase in capacity to 75% allowed today, the number of restaurants who have to temporarily re-shutter again will likely increase due to a rise in infections among staff. It’s going to be a bumpy process until a vaccine is available or medication is able to manage the disease.
My guess is that local officials will move to reimpose stay at home orders to mitigate the virus outbreak. Note Hidalgo’s hyperbole – “the precipice of disaster.” That’s scary, right? She’ll get a lot of pushback, though, if she tries to shut down businesses again in the county.
“We may be approaching the precipice of a disaster,” said Hidalgo, the highest-ranking county executive. “It’s out of hand right now. The good news is it’s not severe out of hand.”
All of these new stories coming out serve to add to the confusion of what everyone should do during this plague. The guidelines of wearing masks, social distancing, and sticking with small gatherings are in effect yet here we are. If we dig a bit into some of the stories of recent deaths from COVID-19, we see that in Dallas County, for example, three deaths were reported Thursday – a Dallas woman in her 50s, a man in his 60s, and a man in his 70s. All were critically ill and already hospitalized, with underlying health conditions. It’s hard to look at their deaths, tragic as they are, the same as new infections of otherwise healthy people. Also interesting is something I heard last night on a local news broadcast – in Houston, the newest cases are coming from the 30-39-year-old age group. The next biggest group of new cases is from those people in their 40s, then 20s, then 50s. Are those people becoming infected as they go back to work or go out and socialize in public?
I’ll tell you what I am doing – I’m staying at home as much as possible. I wear a mask in public. I also keep a distance from other people. And, I wash my hands a lot, especially after returning home. Ours is an at-risk house and this is all logical mitigation action to take. If others look at the risks differently, so be it. In the meantime, I hope enough of us do what we can to stop the spread of the virus. The scientists and medical professionals have let us down. No one is certain of much of anything these days.


hotair--2020-06-12--Hmmm: Fired State Dept IG subject of massive leak probe? <span class='red'>Update: House Dems refuse

Hmmm: Fired State Dept IG subject of massive leak probe? Update: House Dems refuse to hear rebuttal from State?

Did Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump fire Inspector General Steve Linick because he got too close to an arms deal with the Saudis ?
Or did Linick set up a leak operation within the State Department ?
NBC News reported last night on allegations that Linick got canned for his suspicions about the deal , but even that suggests that Linick might have gotten out over his skis : The former State Department inspector general fired by President Donald Trump told lawmakers that two top officials tried to discourage his investigation into a U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ousted inspector general , Steve Linick , said Under Secretary of State for Management Brian Bulatao told him “ that we shouldn ’ t be doing the work because it was a policy matter not within the IG ’ s jurisdiction , ” according to a transcript of his June 3 testimony .
The State Department ’ s acting legal advisor , Marik String , also questioned the probe , arguing it was outside the scope of the inspector general and purely a policy matter , Linick said .
The sale to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The US has sold arms to Riyadh for decades , mainly to win some tolerance of Israel while standing the Saudis up as a counterweight to Iran .
After the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi , the cozy relationship between Washington DC and the Saudis drew a lot of criticism , but it still makes sense in a geopolitical framework to support the Sunni nation against the terror-state Shi ’ ite radical mullahs in Tehran .
Linick says he wasn ’ t interfering on the policy , but … If that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit odd that Pompeo and Trump would bother to fire him in the first place .
The political fallout would be far worse than a review of the legalities of an arms sale , especially given the long track record of such transactions in the past .
It also seems odd that this is the second or third explanation from Linick ’ s defenders as to why he might have been fired .
Supposedly Linick was looking into Pompeo ’ s behavior with subordinates , or potentially using the office for partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time by refusing to discuss it as a “ personnel matter , ” saying that “ I don ’ t leak to y ’ all.
” That might have been a hint , if the Free Beacon ’ s report last night on Linick turns out to be accurate .
According to a report acquired by Adam Kredo from an IG at the Department of Defense , Linick had been copying official emails to his personal account , and then maybe leaking the material to the press — which is what really got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dated March 17 , confirms that fired State Department inspector general Steve Linick was the subject of a broad investigation related to the leaks of politically charged materials to journalists , specifically a draft evaluation report into Brian Hook , the State Department ’ s top Iran official .
The report , which was provided to the House Foreign Affairs Committee , concluded that while Linick was permitted to send information to his personal email account to facilitate access while traveling , he was the only official in that office to have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise new questions about Linick ’ s suspected role in leaking sensitive information to the press .
… Details of the highly sensitive investigation into Hook—involving unsubstantiated allegations that Hook fired officials he saw as insufficiently hawkish on Iran—were leaked to the media without authorization , according to the DOD investigation .
The DOD investigation into Linick found that between March 2019 and September 2019 Linick sent 23 emails containing confidential work products from inside the State Department email system to his personal Gmail account .
Eight of the emails Linick sent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six-day period , contained copies of the incomplete probe into Hook .
Linick was the only State Department employee from the IG ’ s office to email drafts of the evaluation outside the department , according to the report .
The DOD IG did not find evidence that Linick leaked the evaluation to journalists .
Nevertheless , the revelation is likely to fuel criticism of Linick ’ s conduct .
Why would an IG need to copy sensitive material to his personal e-mail account at all ?
That might be something that bureaucrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but IGs are already whistleblowers by form and function .
They have a formal and well-trodden path to Congress for revealing any issues within executive agencies .
There is no need for them to leak to anyone except the relevant congressional committees about what they find in investigations .
The DOD probe may not have found any direct evidence of leaks to the press , but they appear to at least have a circumstantial case developing .
If no one else violated internal security to get those documents out of their classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of any leaking that did occur .
At the very least , he violated those classified-material rules that IGs are supposed to enforce and defend .
This might be why Linick became a cause célèbre in the media , too .
If they just lost an insider within the federal bureaucracy , of course they ’ d try to make him a martyr … for any other reason than what Linick was really doing , assuming that is what he was doing .
It seems pretty absurd to think that Linick was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ts on the latest in a decades-long string of arms sales to Saudi Arabia , though .
Update : This seems even more curious .
Why do House Democrats who have been lionizing Linick suddenly have no interest in testimony from State Department officials ?
Pompeo sent an angry letter to Foreign Affairs Committee chair Eliot Engel accusing the committee of reneging on an earlier offer : This looks like House Democrats aren ’ t terribly interested in pursuing this , all of a sudden .
Maybe Senate Republicans will take a greater @ @ @ @

Did Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump fire Inspector General Steve Linick because he got too close to an arms deal with the Saudis? Or did Linick set up a leak operation within the State Department? NBC News reported last night on allegations that Linick got canned for his suspicions about the deal, but even that suggests that Linick might have gotten out over his skis:
The former State Department inspector general fired by President Donald Trump told lawmakers that two top officials tried to discourage his investigation into a U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia, according to congressional testimony released Wednesday. The ousted inspector general, Steve Linick, said Under Secretary of State for Management Brian Bulatao told him “that we shouldn’t be doing the work because it was a policy matter not within the IG’s jurisdiction,” according to a transcript of his June 3 testimony. The State Department’s acting legal advisor, Marik String, also questioned the probe, arguing it was outside the scope of the inspector general and purely a policy matter, Linick said.
The sale to Saudi Arabia is hardly a novel policy. The US has sold arms to Riyadh for decades, mainly to win some tolerance of Israel while standing the Saudis up as a counterweight to Iran. After the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, the cozy relationship between Washington DC and the Saudis drew a lot of criticism, but it still makes sense in a geopolitical framework to support the Sunni nation against the terror-state Shi’ite radical mullahs in Tehran.
Linick says he wasn’t interfering on the policy, but …
“We don’t assess whether a policy is good or bad, but we assess how a policy — whether it’s efficiently and effectively implemented and whether rules are followed. And we continued to do that,“ Linick said.
If that’s all Linick was doing, it seems a bit odd that Pompeo and Trump would bother to fire him in the first place. The political fallout would be far worse than a review of the legalities of an arms sale, especially given the long track record of such transactions in the past. It also seems odd that this is the second or third explanation from Linick’s defenders as to why he might have been fired. Supposedly Linick was looking into Pompeo’s behavior with subordinates, or potentially using the office for partisan political purposes.
Pompeo responded at that time by refusing to discuss it as a “personnel matter,” saying that “I don’t leak to y’all.” That might have been a hint, if the Free Beacon’s report last night on Linick turns out to be accurate. According to a report acquired by Adam Kredo from an IG at the Department of Defense, Linick had been copying official emails to his personal account, and then maybe leaking the material to the press — which is what really got him fired:
The inquiry report, dated March 17, confirms that fired State Department inspector general Steve Linick was the subject of a broad investigation related to the leaks of politically charged materials to journalists, specifically a draft evaluation report into Brian Hook, the State Department’s top Iran official. The report, which was provided to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, concluded that while Linick was permitted to send information to his personal email account to facilitate access while traveling, he was the only official in that office to have done so. The disclosure is likely to raise new questions about Linick’s suspected role in leaking sensitive information to the press. … Details of the highly sensitive investigation into Hook—involving unsubstantiated allegations that Hook fired officials he saw as insufficiently hawkish on Iran—were leaked to the media without authorization, according to the DOD investigation. The DOD investigation into Linick found that between March 2019 and September 2019 Linick sent 23 emails containing confidential work products from inside the State Department email system to his personal Gmail account. Eight of the emails Linick sent to himself, which were forwarded over a six-day period, contained copies of the incomplete probe into Hook. Linick was the only State Department employee from the IG’s office to email drafts of the evaluation outside the department, according to the report. The DOD IG did not find evidence that Linick leaked the evaluation to journalists. Nevertheless, the revelation is likely to fuel criticism of Linick’s conduct.
Why would an IG need to copy sensitive material to his personal e-mail account at all? That might be something that bureaucrats do in order to act as whistleblowers, but IGs are already whistleblowers by form and function. They have a formal and well-trodden path to Congress for revealing any issues within executive agencies. There is no need for them to leak to anyone except the relevant congressional committees about what they find in investigations.
The DOD probe may not have found any direct evidence of leaks to the press, but they appear to at least have a circumstantial case developing. If no one else violated internal security to get those documents out of their classified containment, then Linick looks like the source of any leaking that did occur. At the very least, he violated those classified-material rules that IGs are supposed to enforce and defend.
This might be why Linick became a cause célèbre in the media, too. If they just lost an insider within the federal bureaucracy, of course they’d try to make him a martyr … for any other reason than what Linick was really doing, assuming that is what he was doing. It seems pretty absurd to think that Linick was fired for merely dotting Is and crossing Ts on the latest in a decades-long string of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, though.
Update: This seems even more curious. Why do House Democrats who have been lionizing Linick suddenly have no interest in testimony from State Department officials? Pompeo sent an angry letter to Foreign Affairs Committee chair Eliot Engel accusing the committee of reneging on an earlier offer:
Man, @SecPompeo doesn't hold back in this letter to Engel about Linick: "I hear you've been busy in your district, so let me get you up to speed on what's been going on in your committee." pic.twitter.com/rXmmy4HcWb — Nate Madden (@NateOnTheHill) June 12, 2020
This looks like House Democrats aren’t terribly interested in pursuing this, all of a sudden. Maybe Senate Republicans will take a greater interest in fairness.