hotair--2020-06-30--Hannity: Wear the masks, people -- they work!

Did Fox News decide to stage an intervention on behalf of Donald Trump ?
Over the last 24 hours , two of the hosts in their top-rated lineup have gone out of their way to rebut conservative skepticism over mask-wearing in public venues .
No lesser MAGA personality than Sean Hannity launched his show last night to reinforce the notion that masks work to control the spread of COVID-19 .
“ Look , anecdotally , I was in the epicenter of this , ” Hannity said , discussing how his grocery store ’ s customers have all masked up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thank God , got coronavirus , ” he declared .
“ I think they work.
” Did Hannity have a particular audience member in mind for this PSA ?
( Via Twitchy ) If Hannity meant this message for one superfan in particular , perhaps so did Steve Doocy .
Earlier this morning , Doocy suggested that MAGA should stand for “ Masks are Great Again ” and urged the Fox & Friends audience to put them on .
“ I don ’ t see any downside to the president wearing one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who says that the president is trying to put together a balancing act on reopening .
That ’ s when Doocy offers his “ marketing advice ” on rebranding MAGA : Maybe these two PSAs are just a coincidence , or perhaps just two hosts independently coming to the same conclusion that Trump ’ s disdain for masks might cost him the election .
As AP noted yesterday , they wouldn ’ t be the first ; Mitch McConnell has gotten much more vocal about his support for wearing masks in public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should put “ no stigma ” on wearing masks seems aimed at the Oval Office as well as some of his allies on Capitol Hill , whose own mask-wearing practices are less than disciplined .
How does this relate to Trump ’ s re-election ?
For one thing , his support among seniors has reportedly dropped , and they are one of his core electoral bases .
Seniors are higher risk for contracting the disease , and the more people mask up , the safer they are .
With Trump suggesting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks , it makes seniors less likely to get out of their houses , and might be adding resentment to the COVID-19 isolation they are experiencing .
More importantly , though , a broad usage of masks might prevent more economic damage .
Goldman Sachs issued a note yesterday that claimed a national mask “ mandate ” could prevent a -5 % GDP hit in 2020 : A federal face mask mandate would not only cut the daily growth rate of new confirmed cases of Covid-19 , but could also save the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit in lieu of additional lockdowns , according to Goldman Sachs .
Jan Hatzius , Goldman ’ s chief economist , said his team investigated the link between face masks and Covid-19 health and economic outcomes and found that facial coverings are associated with sizable and statistically significant results .
“ We find that face masks are associated with significantly better coronavirus outcomes , ” Hatzius wrote in a note to clients .
“ Our baseline estimate is that a national mandate could raise the percentage of people who wear masks by 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily growth rate of confirmed cases by 1.0 [ percentage point ] to 0.6 % .
” “ These calculations imply that a face mask mandate could potentially substitute for lockdowns that would otherwise subtract nearly 5 % from GDP , ” the economist added .
That alone could make the difference between a second MAGA term or a Joe Biden presidency .
As Doocy explicitly argued , a national push for mask-wearing might be the key to really reopening the economy and avoiding a second wave of lengthy lockdowns .
Will Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Thus far he ’ s been resistant to wearing masks even while his own advisors keep pushing mask use publicly .
If Hannity and Doocy can make masks cool on the Right , though , perhaps Trump will get out in front of that trend .

Did Fox News decide to stage an intervention on behalf of Donald Trump? Over the last 24 hours, two of the hosts in their top-rated lineup have gone out of their way to rebut conservative skepticism over mask-wearing in public venues. No lesser MAGA personality than Sean Hannity launched his show last night to reinforce the notion that masks work to control the spread of COVID-19.
“Look, anecdotally, I was in the epicenter of this,” Hannity said, discussing how his grocery store’s customers have all masked up. “No one at my grocery store, thank God, got coronavirus,” he declared. “I think they work.” Did Hannity have a particular audience member in mind for this PSA? (Via Twitchy)
Hannity: I went to my grocery store every week. Guess what? They wore masks… I think they work. pic.twitter.com/SMwIgZVV5Y — Acyn (@Acyn) June 30, 2020
If Hannity meant this message for one superfan in particular, perhaps so did Steve Doocy. Earlier this morning, Doocy suggested that MAGA should stand for “Masks are Great Again” and urged the Fox & Friends audience to put them on. “I don’t see any downside to the president wearing one,” Doocy tells Ronna McDaniel, who says that the president is trying to put together a balancing act on reopening. That’s when Doocy offers his “marketing advice” on rebranding MAGA:
Fox and Friends co-host Steve Doocy: "MAGA should now stand for 'Masks Are Great Again.'" pic.twitter.com/phM1pke5Hp — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) June 30, 2020
Maybe these two PSAs are just a coincidence, or perhaps just two hosts independently coming to the same conclusion that Trump’s disdain for masks might cost him the election. As AP noted yesterday, they wouldn’t be the first; Mitch McConnell has gotten much more vocal about his support for wearing masks in public, too. McConnell’s message that we should put “no stigma” on wearing masks seems aimed at the Oval Office as well as some of his allies on Capitol Hill, whose own mask-wearing practices are less than disciplined.
How does this relate to Trump’s re-election? For one thing, his support among seniors has reportedly dropped, and they are one of his core electoral bases. Seniors are higher risk for contracting the disease, and the more people mask up, the safer they are. With Trump suggesting that it’s not important to wear masks, it makes seniors less likely to get out of their houses, and might be adding resentment to the COVID-19 isolation they are experiencing.
More importantly, though, a broad usage of masks might prevent more economic damage. Goldman Sachs issued a note yesterday that claimed a national mask “mandate” could prevent a -5% GDP hit in 2020:
A federal face mask mandate would not only cut the daily growth rate of new confirmed cases of Covid-19, but could also save the U.S. economy from taking a 5% GDP hit in lieu of additional lockdowns, according to Goldman Sachs. Jan Hatzius, Goldman’s chief economist, said his team investigated the link between face masks and Covid-19 health and economic outcomes and found that facial coverings are associated with sizable and statistically significant results. “We find that face masks are associated with significantly better coronavirus outcomes,” Hatzius wrote in a note to clients. “Our baseline estimate is that a national mandate could raise the percentage of people who wear masks by 15 [percentage points] and cut the daily growth rate of confirmed cases by 1.0 [percentage point] to 0.6%.” “These calculations imply that a face mask mandate could potentially substitute for lockdowns that would otherwise subtract nearly 5% from GDP,” the economist added.
That alone could make the difference between a second MAGA term or a Joe Biden presidency. As Doocy explicitly argued, a national push for mask-wearing might be the key to really reopening the economy and avoiding a second wave of lengthy lockdowns.
Will Trump get the message from Hannity and Doocy? Thus far he’s been resistant to wearing masks even while his own advisors keep pushing mask use publicly. If Hannity and Doocy can make masks cool on the Right, though, perhaps Trump will get out in front of that trend.


hotair--2020-06-30--Some barriers around CHOP removed but there's a divide among protesters over what to do next (Update

Some barriers around CHOP removed but there's a divide among protesters over what to do next (Update: Video added)

Maybe the third time really is the charm .
Seattle Department of Transportation ( SDOT ) crews were set to remove barriers around the CHOP last Friday morning but protesters resisted .
There were rumors they would return Sunday morning but they never did .
Today King 5 reports that some of the barriers around CHOP are finally coming down .
Seattle officials previously said barriers around CHOP would be dismantled Sunday , but the protest zone remain intact through Monday .
The barricades were removed at 10th and Pine .
So why didn ’ t this happen last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CHOP residents ( and authorities ) seems almost random .
But according to Omari Salisbury who has been reporting from the CHOP every day , there are shifting factions within the area who want different things .
He told KIRO radio in Seattle that many of the regular protesters agreed it was time to leave several days ago : [ Salisbury ] has footage of who he referred to as “ the main CHOP people , ” including protesters and people who have been in the tents , who six days ago agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the streets .
“ I mean we played it live on the stream , some said they ’ re going to Seattle Center , some said they were going to camp in front of the East Precinct , ” Salibury recalled .
“ They gave up the space.
” … “ It might sound crazy to people , but … a lot of them want this barricade gone , ” Salisbury said .
But even as the regulars at CHOP are ready to pull back , new people arrived with a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people I ’ ve never seen before , and what they ’ re saying is they ’ ve come here to block SDOT ’ s effort , ” he added .
“ Meanwhile , the actual people who camp here and tent here , the people who have the firearms and everything else , they said they wanted the barricade to go.
” … “ Everybody has a different motivation , ” Salisbury said .
The remaining hard core of protesters seem to be focused on holding the space in front of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are staying , Salisbury told KIRO “ there ’ s people you talk to this is the most important thing they ’ ve ever done , … there ’ s a lot of people who feel like this is their Alamo , this is their line in the sand.
” So protesters are determined to make sure police don ’ t return even as Police Chief Carmen Best is trying to get her officers back in there .
As Ed pointed out earlier , the big question now is whether Mayor Jenny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use force to support Chief Best or continue to negotiate with the protesters .
Waiting the protesters out seems like a bad idea given that we ’ ve had 4 shootings in the last 9 days , two of which have resulted in dead teenagers .
Two other victims are still in the hospital .
If authorities give the protesters another weekend there ’ s a chance there could be more violence .
On the other hand , going in with force could provoke the protesters and also result in violence .
Politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inslee want to be seen opposing people who are ostensibly BLM protesters .
So , until this morning , it has seemed authorities would rather wait and back away from possible confrontation .
Ironically , it ’ s more important to be seen supporting Black Lives Matter protesters than it is to actually protect black lives .
We ’ ll still have to wait and see how much of CHOP gets dismantled and whether or not police will finally be able to return to the precinct .

Maybe the third time really is the charm. Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) crews were set to remove barriers around the CHOP last Friday morning but protesters resisted. There were rumors they would return Sunday morning but they never did. Today King 5 reports that some of the barriers around CHOP are finally coming down.
City crews began removing barricades around Seattle’s CHOP Tuesday morning. Seattle officials previously said barriers around CHOP would be dismantled Sunday, but the protest zone remain intact through Monday. The barricades were removed at 10th and Pine.
So why didn’t this happen last week? From the outside the behavior of CHOP residents (and authorities) seems almost random. But according to Omari Salisbury who has been reporting from the CHOP every day, there are shifting factions within the area who want different things. He told KIRO radio in Seattle that many of the regular protesters agreed it was time to leave several days ago:
[Salisbury] has footage of who he referred to as “the main CHOP people,” including protesters and people who have been in the tents, who six days ago agreed to give up Cal Anderson and some of the streets. “I mean we played it live on the stream, some said they’re going to Seattle Center, some said they were going to camp in front of the East Precinct,” Salibury recalled. “They gave up the space.”… “It might sound crazy to people, but … a lot of them want this barricade gone,” Salisbury said.
But even as the regulars at CHOP are ready to pull back, new people arrived with a different agenda:
“I see a lot of people I’ve never seen before, and what they’re saying is they’ve come here to block SDOT’s effort,” he added. “Meanwhile, the actual people who camp here and tent here, the people who have the firearms and everything else, they said they wanted the barricade to go.”… “Everybody has a different motivation,” Salisbury said.
The remaining hard core of protesters seem to be focused on holding the space in front of the police precinct. As for why they are staying, Salisbury told KIRO “there’s people you talk to this is the most important thing they’ve ever done, … there’s a lot of people who feel like this is their Alamo, this is their line in the sand.”
So protesters are determined to make sure police don’t return even as Police Chief Carmen Best is trying to get her officers back in there. As Ed pointed out earlier, the big question now is whether Mayor Jenny Durkan or Gov. Jay Inslee will use force to support Chief Best or continue to negotiate with the protesters.
Waiting the protesters out seems like a bad idea given that we’ve had 4 shootings in the last 9 days, two of which have resulted in dead teenagers. Two other victims are still in the hospital. If authorities give the protesters another weekend there’s a chance there could be more violence. On the other hand, going in with force could provoke the protesters and also result in violence.
Politically, neither Mayor Durkan nor Gov. Inslee want to be seen opposing people who are ostensibly BLM protesters. So, until this morning, it has seemed authorities would rather wait and back away from possible confrontation. Ironically, it’s more important to be seen supporting Black Lives Matter protesters than it is to actually protect black lives. We’ll still have to wait and see how much of CHOP gets dismantled and whether or not police will finally be able to return to the precinct.
Update: Here’s raw video from King 5.


hotair--2020-06-30--Official Dem Twitter account: Why is Trump holding a "white supremacy" event at Mt. Rushmore? <span

Official Dem Twitter account: Why is Trump holding a "white supremacy" event at Mt. Rushmore? Update: Biden says Washington, Columbus statues should be protected

Every week Jonathan Last of The Bulwark publishes a triumphalist post counting down the time left until Election Day , believing that a Biden win is now a foregone conclusion .
Today ’ s entry is titled “ A Victory or a Landslide ?
” But as impressive as Biden ’ s national lead is right now , I can ’ t go along with that thinking for two reasons .
One : Do not underestimate 2020 ’ s ability to surprise .
If the last six months have taught us anything about politics and , well , the universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything can happen .
Two : Do not underestimate Democrats ’ ability to blow an easy lay-up .
For further reading , see “ Clinton , Hillary.
” I mean , if they ’ re now running on a campaign of woke-purging *Mt .
Rushmore* , a Trump comeback seems not just possible but likely .
Eventually they figured out that a platform of irredentism on behalf on Native Americans replete with smashing idols of Washington and Lincoln might not help win over those ex-Republican suburban voters the party is courting , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Important context , though : The DNC posted that “ Down with Mt .
Rushmore ” tweet just hours after this unfolded in New York ’ s Washington Square Park .
With news circulating on social media of new icons of Washington having been defaced , the Democrats ’ instinctive response was essentially , “ Don ’ t forget the big one in South Dakota too.
” The nominee has been quiet about left-wing idol-smashing , at least with respect to the Founding Fathers .
When will he speak up , asks William @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to declare himself on the issue , he ’ s clearly betting that a press corps that managed to ignore a former Senate staffer ’ s charge of sexual assault for weeks won ’ t press him on the statues and the mayhem .
No doubt he is betting correctly .
On paper , this should be an easy call .
The Democratic voters , especially African-American voters , who made Mr. Biden their nominee did so on the belief they were going with the moderate .
But Mr. Biden has been under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s obliged by flip-flopping on many positions that made him a moderate—from his support of the 1994 crime bill to his initial rejection of the Green New Deal .
Many observers have noted that in 1968 Richard Nixon successfully campaigned on restoring law and order .
But Mr. Biden knows that what made Hubert Humphrey look weak wasn ’ t just Nixon .
It was also the antiwar protesters causing the chaos in the streets , who didn ’ t trust him and didn ’ t mind making him look bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a progressive mob that doesn ’ t bother to distinguish between Gens .
Grant and Lee might just as easily turn on him .
Trump continues to highlight the spate of vandalism on Twitter in order to put pressure on Biden and the Democratic leadership , a rare case lately of him staking out a position that aligns him with majority opinion against the left instead of vice versa : It ’ s no-win for Biden .
If he calls for laying off images of Washington and Lincoln , the wokesters will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , everyone else will be .
I think his strategy is to keep his head down , hope that the vandalism burns itself out soon , and then comment once people ’ s feelings on the subject aren ’ t as inflamed as they are presently .
If he speaks up now , he ’ s effectively siding with Trump against progressives , a dangerous place for him to be .
He still needs the left ’ s support this fall .
If he speaks up a month from now , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and Trump has moved on to other topics , a few politely discouraging words about defacing statues of Washington will be more easily tolerated .
Besides , the left knows that they can get back to it once the election is safely won .
It ’ s not like President Biden ’ s going to crack down on them if they tear down the Lincoln Emancipation statue in D.C. , right ?
Here ’ s “ The View ” having a loooong debate about the Teddy Roosevelt statue outside the Museum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coming down too but in an orderly way , on the museum ’ s own orders .
As for Last ’ s questionable certainty about a Biden victory , I should note in his defense that all of the recent vandalism is playing out against a backdrop of Trump ’ s polling sliding ever further downward , to the point where he ’ s at risk today of slipping below 40 percent in the latest RCP head-to-head tracker .
There ’ s no cause-and-effect there : Obviously Trump has taken a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handled the pandemic and the anti-racism protests , not because America ’ s suddenly in love with the idea of splattering George Washington with paint .
The point , rather , is that his best efforts to gain some culture-war traction on this issue and pull some wary voters back into his orbit due to fears of left-wing radicalism aren ’ t paying off .
They haven ’ t stopped the slide .
Maybe they will if the latest COVID-19 outbreak calms down and the protests continue to fade and the electorate can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but those are huge “ ifs.
” Would anyone bet at this point on a sustained “ quiet period ” for coronavirus before November ?
Update : Didn ’ t take long for this post to become outdated .
His answer here is not a model of cogency , let us say , but someone put him on the spot during a speech today by asking about the monuments and he did in fact distinguish between the likes of Washington and Columbus , on the one hand , and Confederates on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftists react .

Every week Jonathan Last of The Bulwark publishes a triumphalist post counting down the time left until Election Day, believing that a Biden win is now a foregone conclusion. Today’s entry is titled “A Victory or a Landslide?”
But as impressive as Biden’s national lead is right now, I can’t go along with that thinking for two reasons. One: Do not underestimate 2020’s ability to surprise. If the last six months have taught us anything about politics and, well, the universe, it’s that this year anything can happen.
Two: Do not underestimate Democrats’ ability to blow an easy lay-up. For further reading, see “Clinton, Hillary.”
I mean, if they’re now running on a campaign of woke-purging *Mt. Rushmore*, a Trump comeback seems not just possible but likely.
Eventually they figured out that a platform of irredentism on behalf on Native Americans replete with smashing idols of Washington and Lincoln might not help win over those ex-Republican suburban voters the party is courting, as the tweet above was soon deleted. Important context, though: The DNC posted that “Down with Mt. Rushmore” tweet just hours after this unfolded in New York’s Washington Square Park.
With news circulating on social media of new icons of Washington having been defaced, the Democrats’ instinctive response was essentially, “Don’t forget the big one in South Dakota too.”
The nominee has been quiet about left-wing idol-smashing, at least with respect to the Founding Fathers. When will he speak up, asks William McGurn?
Notwithstanding calls for Mr. Biden to declare himself on the issue, he’s clearly betting that a press corps that managed to ignore a former Senate staffer’s charge of sexual assault for weeks won’t press him on the statues and the mayhem. No doubt he is betting correctly. On paper, this should be an easy call. The Democratic voters, especially African-American voters, who made Mr. Biden their nominee did so on the belief they were going with the moderate. But Mr. Biden has been under relentless pressure to move left, and he’s obliged by flip-flopping on many positions that made him a moderate—from his support of the 1994 crime bill to his initial rejection of the Green New Deal. Many observers have noted that in 1968 Richard Nixon successfully campaigned on restoring law and order. But Mr. Biden knows that what made Hubert Humphrey look weak wasn’t just Nixon. It was also the antiwar protesters causing the chaos in the streets, who didn’t trust him and didn’t mind making him look bad. Mr. Biden is all too aware that a progressive mob that doesn’t bother to distinguish between Gens. Grant and Lee might just as easily turn on him.
Trump continues to highlight the spate of vandalism on Twitter in order to put pressure on Biden and the Democratic leadership, a rare case lately of him staking out a position that aligns him with majority opinion against the left instead of vice versa:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1277954189008744448
It’s no-win for Biden. If he calls for laying off images of Washington and Lincoln, the wokesters will be pissed. If he hedges on it, everyone else will be. I think his strategy is to keep his head down, hope that the vandalism burns itself out soon, and then comment once people’s feelings on the subject aren’t as inflamed as they are presently. If he speaks up now, he’s effectively siding with Trump against progressives, a dangerous place for him to be. He still needs the left’s support this fall. If he speaks up a month from now, after the idol-smashing has died down (hopefully) and Trump has moved on to other topics, a few politely discouraging words about defacing statues of Washington will be more easily tolerated.
Besides, the left knows that they can get back to it once the election is safely won. It’s not like President Biden’s going to crack down on them if they tear down the Lincoln Emancipation statue in D.C., right?
Here’s “The View” having a loooong debate about the Teddy Roosevelt statue outside the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. That one’s coming down too but in an orderly way, on the museum’s own orders. As for Last’s questionable certainty about a Biden victory, I should note in his defense that all of the recent vandalism is playing out against a backdrop of Trump’s polling sliding ever further downward, to the point where he’s at risk today of slipping below 40 percent in the latest RCP head-to-head tracker. There’s no cause-and-effect there: Obviously Trump has taken a hit because of how he’s handled the pandemic and the anti-racism protests, not because America’s suddenly in love with the idea of splattering George Washington with paint. The point, rather, is that his best efforts to gain some culture-war traction on this issue and pull some wary voters back into his orbit due to fears of left-wing radicalism aren’t paying off. They haven’t stopped the slide. Maybe they will if the latest COVID-19 outbreak calms down and the protests continue to fade and the electorate can turn its full attention to this subject, but those are huge “ifs.” Would anyone bet at this point on a sustained “quiet period” for coronavirus before November?
Update: Didn’t take long for this post to become outdated. His answer here is not a model of cogency, let us say, but someone put him on the spot during a speech today by asking about the monuments and he did in fact distinguish between the likes of Washington and Columbus, on the one hand, and Confederates on the other. We’ll see how leftists react.


hotair--2020-06-30--Surprise: SCOTUS rules for religious liberty in Montana scholarship case, 5-4

Will the Washington Post laud John Roberts ’ independence after today ’ s ruling in Espinoza v Montana Department of Revenue ?
Don ’ t hold your breath , but religious schools can breathe a little easier after this 5-4 decision .
Once states set up scholarships for students , they can not deny them on the basis that the money might go to religious schools chosen by the students or parents .
It ’ s yet another blow to the Blaine Amendments in several states : Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court .
He was joined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
The court ’ s four Democratic appointees dissented .
Roberts wrote that a decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate a scholarship program on the basis that it would provide funding to religious schools in addition to secular schools “ bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools.
” … Shortly after the program was enacted , the Montana Department of Revenue put in place a rule that barred scholarship recipients from using funds from the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule was intended to comply with a provision of the Montana Constitution , which forbids “ any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies … for any sectarian purpose , ” including “ to aid any church , school , academy , seminary , college , university , or other literary or scientific institution.
” Similar prohibitions , known as Blaine Amendments , exist in the constitutions of 36 other states , and in many cases stemmed from anti-Catholic sentiments .
Interestingly , Roberts barely touches on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only two brief references .
Justice Samuel Alito argues much more specifically about the malevolent nature of Blaine Amendments : Backers of the Blaine Amendment either held nativist views or capitalized on them .
When Blaine introduced the amendment , The Nation reported that it was “ a Constitutional amendment directed against the Catholics ” —while surmising that Blaine , whose Presidential ambitions were known , sought “ to use it in the campaign to catch antiCatholic votes.
” 7 The amendment had its intended galvanizing effect .
“ Its popularity was so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” who depended on Catholic votes , “ were expected to support it , ” and the congressional floor debates were rife with anti-Catholic sentiment , including “ a tirade against Pope Pius IX.
” 8 Montana ’ s no-aid provision was the result of this same prejudice .
When Congress allowed Montana into the Union in 1889 , it still included prominent supporters of the failed Blaine Amendment .
See Sen. Daines Brief 10–13 .
The Act enabling Montana to become a State required “ [ t ] hat provision shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of systems of public schools .
.
.
free from sectarian control.
” Act of Feb. 22 , 1889 , §4 , 25 Stat .
677 ; see also Becket Fund Brief 17–18 ( quoting one Senator ’ s description of the Act as “ ‘ completing the unfinished work of the failed Blaine Amendment ’ ” ) .
Montana thereafter adopted its constitutional rule against public funding for any school “ controlled ” by a “ sect.
” Mont .
Const.
, Art .
XI , §8 ( 1889 ) .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools that meant .
As petitioners show , Montana ’ s religious schools—and its private schools in general—were predominantly Catholic , see Brief for Petitioners 42 , and n. 41 , and anti-Catholicism was alive in Montana too .
See , e.g.
, Sen. Daines Brief 1–3 ( describing a riot over an anti-Catholic sign hung over a Butte saloon on Independence Day , 1894 ) .
Respondents argue that Montana ’ s no-aid provision merely reflects a state interest in “ preserv [ ing ] funding for public schools , ” Brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common schools ” during the Blaine era .
Yet just as one can not separate the Blaine Amendment from its context , “ [ o ] ne can not separate the founding of the American common school and the strong nativist movement.
” Clearly , Montana was arguing a losing cause when defending its Blaine Amendment in Espinoza .
Interestingly , and tellingly , not one mention of Blaine appears in any of the dissents in Espinoza .
Roberts for his part mostly relies on Trinity Lutheran to slap down the disparate treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The lower courts erred in not applying strict scrutiny to this government intervention , Roberts writes , and uses the dissents to dissect that problem : The simplest response is that these dissents follow from prior separate writings , not from the Court ’ s decision in Trinity Lutheran or the decades of precedent on which it relied .
These precedents have “ repeatedly confirmed ” the straightforward rule that we apply today : When otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from a public benefit “ solely because of their religious character , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lutheran , 582 U. S. , at ___–___ ( slip op.
, at 6–10 ) .
This rule against express religious discrimination is no “ doctrinal innovation.
” Post , at 13 ( opinion of BREYER , J. )
.
Far from it .
As Trinity Lutheran explained , the rule is “ unremarkable in light of our prior decisions.
” 582 U. S. , at ___ ( slip op.
, at 10 ) .
For innovation , one must look to the dissents .
Their “ room [ y ] ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious organizations and observers would mark a significant departure from our free exercise precedents .
The protections of the Free Exercise Clause do not depend on a “ judgment-by-judgment analysis ” regarding whether discrimination against religious adherents would somehow serve ill-defined interests .
Because the Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid provision to discriminate against schools and parents based on the religious character of the school , the “ strictest scrutiny ” is required .
Supra , at 9 , 12 ( quoting Trinity Lutheran , 582 U. S. , at ___ ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That “ stringent standard , ” id.
, at ___ ( slip op.
, at 14 ) , is not “ watered down but really means what it says , ” Lukumi , 508 U. S. , at 546 ( internal quotation marks and alterations omitted ) .
To satisfy it , government action “ must advance ‘ interests of the highest order ’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.
” Ibid .
( quoting McDaniel , 435 U. S. , at 628 ) .
The Montana Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montana ’ s interest in separating church and State “ more fiercely ” than the Federal Constitution .
393 Mont.
, at 467 , 435 P. 3d , at 614 .
But “ that interest can not qualify as compelling ” in the face of the infringement of free exercise here .
Trinity Lutheran , 582 U. S. , at ___ ( slip op.
, at 14 ) .
A State ’ s interest “ in achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clause.
” Ibid .
( quoting Widmar v. Vincent , 454 U. S. 263 , 276 ( 1981 ) ) .
In fact , Roberts writes , the issue at hand in Espinoza is far worse of an infringement than in Trinity Lutheran : The Department ’ s argument is especially unconvincing because the infringement of religious liberty here broadly affects both religious schools and adherents .
Montana ’ s noaid provision imposes a categorical ban— “ broadly and strictly ” prohibiting “ any type of aid ” to religious schools .
393 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3d , at 611 .
This prohibition is far more sweeping than the policy in Trinity Lutheran , which barred churches from one narrow program for playground resurfacing—causing “ in all likelihood ” only “ a few extra scraped knees.
” 582 U. S. , at ___ ( slip op.
, at 15 ) .
And the prohibition before us today burdens not only religious schools but also the families whose children attend or hope to attend them .
Drawing on “ enduring American tradition , ” we have long recognized the rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upbringing ” of their children .
Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U. S. 205 , 213–214 , 232 ( 1972 ) .
Many parents exercise that right by sending their children to religious schools , a choice protected by the Constitution .
See Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U. S. 510 , 534–535 ( 1925 ) .
But the no-aid provision penalizes that decision by cutting families off from otherwise available benefits if they choose a religious private school rather than a secular one , and for no other reason .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for religious liberty from Roberts , who isn ’ t exactly endearing himself to conservatives these days otherwise .
But did it go far enough ?
Justice Neil Gorsuch wanted Roberts to rule more broadly on that issue , as Gabriel Malor notes : Gorsuch wanted a recognition that there is no constitutional difference between status and use , because the First Amendment protects the freedom of religious expression , and not just “ holding beliefs inwardly and secretly.
” That would have created a precedent that would have extended into areas raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which the court has heretofore addressed in a more piecemeal fashion .
Still , it ’ s a big step forward for defeating the Blaine Amendments that still remain in several state constitutions .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , in the main dissent , said the court should have just ordered a dog-in-the-manger strategy instead , again via Gabriel : Fair enough , but as Gabriel points out , that would put an end to all school-choice programs involving scholarship monies .
Is the need to maintain the Blaine Amendments — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compelling as to foreclose any such innovations on the off chance that those funds might go to a non-secular school ?
If Bader Ginsburg thinks that , then she should run for public office .
This might restore a little respect for Roberts in the wake of June Medical on the Right .
Don ’ t expect the WaPo to keep singing Roberts ’ praise for long after Espinoza , though .

Will the Washington Post laud John Roberts’ independence after today’s ruling in Espinoza v Montana Department of Revenue? Don’t hold your breath, but religious schools can breathe a little easier after this 5-4 decision. Once states set up scholarships for students, they cannot deny them on the basis that the money might go to religious schools chosen by the students or parents.
It’s yet another blow to the Blaine Amendments in several states:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. He was joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The court’s four Democratic appointees dissented. Roberts wrote that a decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate a scholarship program on the basis that it would provide funding to religious schools in addition to secular schools “bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools.” … Shortly after the program was enacted, the Montana Department of Revenue put in place a rule that barred scholarship recipients from using funds from the program to pay for religious schools. That rule was intended to comply with a provision of the Montana Constitution, which forbids “any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies … for any sectarian purpose,” including “to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution.” Similar prohibitions, known as Blaine Amendments, exist in the constitutions of 36 other states, and in many cases stemmed from anti-Catholic sentiments.
Interestingly, Roberts barely touches on the Blaine Amendments in his opinion, with only two brief references. Justice Samuel Alito argues much more specifically about the malevolent nature of Blaine Amendments:
Backers of the Blaine Amendment either held nativist views or capitalized on them. When Blaine introduced the amendment, The Nation reported that it was “a Constitutional amendment directed against the Catholics”—while surmising that Blaine, whose Presidential ambitions were known, sought “to use it in the campaign to catch antiCatholic votes.”7 The amendment had its intended galvanizing effect. “Its popularity was so great” that “even congressional Democrats,” who depended on Catholic votes, “were expected to support it,” and the congressional floor debates were rife with anti-Catholic sentiment, including “a tirade against Pope Pius IX.”8 Montana’s no-aid provision was the result of this same prejudice. When Congress allowed Montana into the Union in 1889, it still included prominent supporters of the failed Blaine Amendment. See Sen. Daines Brief 10–13. The Act enabling Montana to become a State required “[t]hat provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools . . . free from sectarian control.” Act of Feb. 22, 1889, §4, 25 Stat. 677; see also Becket Fund Brief 17–18 (quoting one Senator’s description of the Act as “‘completing the unfinished work of the failed Blaine Amendment’”). Montana thereafter adopted its constitutional rule against public funding for any school “controlled” by a “sect.” Mont. Const., Art. XI, §8 (1889). There appears to have been no doubt which schools that meant. As petitioners show, Montana’s religious schools—and its private schools in general—were predominantly Catholic, see Brief for Petitioners 42, and n. 41, and anti-Catholicism was alive in Montana too. See, e.g., Sen. Daines Brief 1–3 (describing a riot over an anti-Catholic sign hung over a Butte saloon on Independence Day, 1894). Respondents argue that Montana’s no-aid provision merely reflects a state interest in “preserv[ing] funding for public schools,” Brief for Respondents 7, known as “common schools” during the Blaine era. Yet just as one cannot separate the Blaine Amendment from its context, “[o]ne cannot separate the founding of the American common school and the strong nativist movement.”
Clearly, Montana was arguing a losing cause when defending its Blaine Amendment in Espinoza. Interestingly, and tellingly, not one mention of Blaine appears in any of the dissents in Espinoza.
Roberts for his part mostly relies on Trinity Lutheran to slap down the disparate treatment of aid and its indirect character. The lower courts erred in not applying strict scrutiny to this government intervention, Roberts writes, and uses the dissents to dissect that problem:
The simplest response is that these dissents follow from prior separate writings, not from the Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran or the decades of precedent on which it relied. These precedents have “repeatedly confirmed” the straightforward rule that we apply today: When otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from a public benefit “solely because of their religious character,” we must apply strict scrutiny. Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 6–10). This rule against express religious discrimination is no “doctrinal innovation.” Post, at 13 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Far from it. As Trinity Lutheran explained, the rule is “unremarkable in light of our prior decisions.” 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10). For innovation, one must look to the dissents. Their “room[y]” or “flexible” approaches to discrimination against religious organizations and observers would mark a significant departure from our free exercise precedents. The protections of the Free Exercise Clause do not depend on a “judgment-by-judgment analysis” regarding whether discrimination against religious adherents would somehow serve ill-defined interests. Because the Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid provision to discriminate against schools and parents based on the religious character of the school, the “strictest scrutiny” is required. Supra, at 9, 12 (quoting Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11)). That “stringent standard,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 14), is not “watered down but really means what it says,” Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). To satisfy it, government action “must advance ‘interests of the highest order’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” Ibid. (quoting McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 628). The Montana Supreme Court asserted that the no-aid provision serves Montana’s interest in separating church and State “more fiercely” than the Federal Constitution. 393 Mont., at 467, 435 P. 3d, at 614. But “that interest cannot qualify as compelling” in the face of the infringement of free exercise here. Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14). A State’s interest “in achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause . . . is limited by the Free Exercise Clause.” Ibid. (quoting Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 276 (1981)).
In fact, Roberts writes, the issue at hand in Espinoza is far worse of an infringement than in Trinity Lutheran:
The Department’s argument is especially unconvincing because the infringement of religious liberty here broadly affects both religious schools and adherents. Montana’s noaid provision imposes a categorical ban—“broadly and strictly” prohibiting “any type of aid” to religious schools. 393 Mont., at 462–463, 435 P. 3d, at 611. This prohibition is far more sweeping than the policy in Trinity Lutheran, which barred churches from one narrow program for playground resurfacing—causing “in all likelihood” only “a few extra scraped knees.” 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15). And the prohibition before us today burdens not only religious schools but also the families whose children attend or hope to attend them. Drawing on “enduring American tradition,” we have long recognized the rights of parents to direct “the religious upbringing” of their children. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 213–214, 232 (1972). Many parents exercise that right by sending their children to religious schools, a choice protected by the Constitution. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534–535 (1925). But the no-aid provision penalizes that decision by cutting families off from otherwise available benefits if they choose a religious private school rather than a secular one, and for no other reason.
That’s a pretty strong defense for religious liberty from Roberts, who isn’t exactly endearing himself to conservatives these days otherwise. But did it go far enough? Justice Neil Gorsuch wanted Roberts to rule more broadly on that issue, as Gabriel Malor notes:
Here's Gorsuch's conclusion, which criticizes Montana's Supreme Court for suggesting that you can have school choice, as long as that choice isn't for a religious school: pic.twitter.com/Cvynwra3G6 — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 30, 2020
Gorsuch wanted a recognition that there is no constitutional difference between status and use, because the First Amendment protects the freedom of religious expression, and not just “holding beliefs inwardly and secretly.” That would have created a precedent that would have extended into areas raised by the Obergefell decision on public accommodations, which the court has heretofore addressed in a more piecemeal fashion.
Still, it’s a big step forward for defeating the Blaine Amendments that still remain in several state constitutions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the main dissent, said the court should have just ordered a dog-in-the-manger strategy instead, again via Gabriel:
Justice Ginsburg in dissent buys into the Montana Supreme Court's too-clever solution: just invalidate all the scholarships, not just the religious scholarships. Therefore, there can be no discrimination. Not a strong advocate for school choice here. pic.twitter.com/pwe6MNyA66 — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 30, 2020
Fair enough, but as Gabriel points out, that would put an end to all school-choice programs involving scholarship monies. Is the need to maintain the Blaine Amendments — which Bader Ginsburg pointedly avoids — really so compelling as to foreclose any such innovations on the off chance that those funds might go to a non-secular school? If Bader Ginsburg thinks that, then she should run for public office.
This might restore a little respect for Roberts in the wake of June Medical on the Right. Don’t expect the WaPo to keep singing Roberts’ praise for long after Espinoza, though.


hotair--2020-06-30--AP: White House had intel on Russian bounties in early 2019 -- and Bolton said he briefed Trump

When we checked in on this story last night , the latest news via NBC was that Trump had never been briefed about Russia allegedly placing bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan .
That contradicted reports from the AP and New York Times claiming that he was briefed at some point .
Trump himself insists that he hasn ’ t been .
Who ’ s lying ?
The Times and the AP are both back today with new evidence alleging that he ’ s known about it , or should have known about it , for awhile .
A long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans , a full year earlier than has been previously reported , according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence .
The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump ’ s written daily intelligence briefings at the time , according to the officials .
Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent , given that Russian meddling in Afghanistan is not a new occurrence .
The officials with knowledge of Bolton ’ s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “ actionable intelligence , ” meaning the intelligence community did not have enough information to form a strategic plan or response .
However , the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting .
John Bolton ?
Wasn ’ t Bolton asked specifically a few days ago on CNN whether he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian bounties ?
Why didn ’ t he mention this then ?
Bolton described himself in that interview as “ puzzled ” by Trump ’ s tweet claiming that he didn ’ t know anything about this and hinted that the whole matter sounded like a story that could have been included in his book .
Was that his way of hinting that it ’ s true ?
Remember that he ’ s in the DOJ ’ s crosshairs right now for possibly having leaked classified information in his book .
He might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian bounties to CNN for fear of strengthening the DOJ ’ s case against him .
Anyway .
If it ’ s true that the White House has had suspicions about Russia targeting American soldiers for more than a year , it makes it that much harder to believe that Trump was never informed .
That ’ s where the Times comes in , insisting that the matter was mentioned in two separate intelligence circulars within the last few months — including the President ’ s Daily Brief , on a specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disclosure by two officials that the intelligence was included months ago in Mr. Trump ’ s President ’ s Daily Brief document — a compilation of the government ’ s latest secrets and best insights about foreign policy and national security that is prepared for him to read .
One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump ’ s brief in late February ; the other cited Feb. 27 , specifically .
Moreover , a description of the intelligence assessment that the Russian unit had carried out the bounties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid enough to disseminate more broadly across the intelligence community in a May 4 article in the C.I.A.
’ s World Intelligence Review , a classified compendium commonly referred to as The Wire , two officials said .
On Sunday Catherine Herridge of CBS was told by a senior intelligence official that he ’ d been reviewing archived versions of the PDB and couldn ’ t find anything in there about Russian bounties .
Had he not reached the February 27 edition yet in his review ?
Or was the Times given bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very specific info , easily confirmed or disproved by people with access to the documents .
We should know more soon .
Assuming that the Times is right and that the matter was included in the PDB in late February , how could Trump have missed it ?
That ’ s simple : “ Mr .
Trump is said to often neglect reading that document , preferring instead to receive an oral briefing summarizing highlights every few days , ” the Times notes .
His disinterest in the Daily Brief , one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , was also noted a few months ago amid fingerpointing about why the feds didn ’ t move sooner to address the coronavirus epidemic when it was percolating in China early this year .
Supposedly the progress of China ’ s outbreak was covered in more than a dozen separate editions of the PDB .
“ But the alarms appear to have failed to register with the president , ” wrote WaPo in late April , “ who routinely skips reading the PDB and has at times shown little patience for even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three times per week , according to the officials , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.
” They reported the same thing in February 2018 , when the pandemic was still years away .
“ He rarely if ever reads the President ’ s Daily Brief , ” WaPo claimed , which “ could hamper his ability to respond to crises in the most effective manner , intelligence experts warned.
” More recently , the Times reported that “ He has a short attention span and rarely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relying instead on conservative media and his friends for information.
” That may help explain why Trump is still insisting that he ’ s never been briefed on the Russian bounties .
Fine , sure , it was in the PDB , but you can ’ t expect him to actually do his homework , even if that homework is a compendium of the most sensitive information about foreign threats known to the U.S. government .
That ’ s not a “ briefing.
” If you want to “ brief ” him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton did , according to the AP .
Stay tuned about that .
It ’ s not just the Times claiming today that the bounty matter was mentioned in the PDB .
CNN ’ s sources say so too .
But how did it make it into that document if , as NBC claimed last night , the intel was “ not corroborated broadly ” and that officials disagreed “ about the implications and significance of the plot ” ?
Well , for starters , it ’ s a matter of dispute whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Isn ’ t it always ? )
Various officials from John Ratcliffe to Gina Haspel to the National Security Council put out statements last night stressing that the bounty matter is still being investigated , suggesting that it ’ s sketchy and maybe not worth Trump ’ s time .
But “ current and former intelligence officials familiar with the intelligence ” told WaPo that the evidence is “ less ambiguous than White House officials and some lawmakers have portrayed.
” And various former intel officials told CNN that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefed on info that hasn ’ t been corroborated yet .
That ’ s the nature of intelligence , after all .
Rarely do you have smoking-gun proof of what you suspect : “ That ’ s ridiculous , ” the former official said about the White House ’ s claim , adding that it is “ hard to believe ” the intelligence community shared what it was hearing about Russia with allies like the British and not at least inform the President that it was a thread they were following… “ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s daily brief only when they are completely corroborated and verified because then it is not intelligence anymore ; then it ’ s fact , ” David Priess , a former CIA officer during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations , told CNN in an interview on Monday .
Larry Pfeiffer , former CIA chief of staff who also served as senior director of the White House Situation Room , said intelligence rarely operates in the world of black and white .
Instead , agents and officials often craft “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which are “ often presented with dissenting views , ” said Pfeiffer .
The 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden was based on intelligence that some characterized as 50-50 , Pfeiffer added .
Notably , the Republican ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee , Mac Thornberry , also finds it “ very concerning ” that Trump wouldn ’ t have been briefed about an allegation as serious as this : “ Anything with any hint of credibility that would endanger our service members , much less put a bounty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been briefed immediately to the commander in chief and a plan to deal with that situation.
” Maybe he was briefed by Bolton , though .
The question is : If in fact the subject was included in the PDB on February 27 , why did none of his in-person briefers mention it to him in their in-person sessions ( or did they ? )
.
I ask that not to excuse Trump for not doing his homework but to try to gauge how seriously the IC was taking this story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ d be a matter of urgent concern even if the evidence wasn ’ t rock solid .
Matters of urgent concern would logically come up in the president ’ s in-person briefings .
Did they ?
Exit question : What ’ s Trump ’ s best spin if it ’ s confirmed that the bounties were included in the February 27 PDB ?
“ I didn ’ t read it ” ?
“ I forgot ” ?
Not great either way .
What if Bolton testifies before the House ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did brief Trump on it awhile back ?

When we checked in on this story last night, the latest news via NBC was that Trump had never been briefed about Russia allegedly placing bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That contradicted reports from the AP and New York Times claiming that he was briefed at some point. Trump himself insists that he hasn’t been. Who’s lying?
The Times and the AP are both back today with new evidence alleging that he’s known about it, or should have known about it, for awhile. A long while, per the AP:
Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence. The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019… Officials said they did not consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent, given that Russian meddling in Afghanistan is not a new occurrence. The officials with knowledge of Bolton’s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “actionable intelligence,” meaning the intelligence community did not have enough information to form a strategic plan or response. However, the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting.
John Bolton? Wasn’t Bolton asked specifically a few days ago on CNN whether he believed Trump had been briefed about the Russian bounties? Why didn’t he mention this then?
John Bolton reacts to Pres. Trump's denial he was briefed on Russia offering bounties to kill coalition forces: "This is part of the problem with President Trump's decision-making in the national security space. It is just unconnected to the reality he's dealing with" #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/ZNvPtWOi4h — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) June 28, 2020
Bolton described himself in that interview as “puzzled” by Trump’s tweet claiming that he didn’t know anything about this and hinted that the whole matter sounded like a story that could have been included in his book. Was that his way of hinting that it’s true? Remember that he’s in the DOJ’s crosshairs right now for possibly having leaked classified information in his book. He might have been wary of confirming anything about the Russian bounties to CNN for fear of strengthening the DOJ’s case against him.
Anyway. If it’s true that the White House has had suspicions about Russia targeting American soldiers for more than a year, it makes it that much harder to believe that Trump was never informed. That’s where the Times comes in, insisting that the matter was mentioned in two separate intelligence circulars within the last few months — including the President’s Daily Brief, on a specific date:
But that stance clashed with the disclosure by two officials that the intelligence was included months ago in Mr. Trump’s President’s Daily Brief document — a compilation of the government’s latest secrets and best insights about foreign policy and national security that is prepared for him to read. One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically. Moreover, a description of the intelligence assessment that the Russian unit had carried out the bounties plot was also seen as serious and solid enough to disseminate more broadly across the intelligence community in a May 4 article in the C.I.A.’s World Intelligence Review, a classified compendium commonly referred to as The Wire, two officials said.
On Sunday Catherine Herridge of CBS was told by a senior intelligence official that he’d been reviewing archived versions of the PDB and couldn’t find anything in there about Russian bounties. Had he not reached the February 27 edition yet in his review? Or was the Times given bad information about this? It’s very specific info, easily confirmed or disproved by people with access to the documents. We should know more soon.
Assuming that the Times is right and that the matter was included in the PDB in late February, how could Trump have missed it? That’s simple: “Mr. Trump is said to often neglect reading that document, preferring instead to receive an oral briefing summarizing highlights every few days,” the Times notes. His disinterest in the Daily Brief, one of the most fascinating intelligence documents in the world, was also noted a few months ago amid fingerpointing about why the feds didn’t move sooner to address the coronavirus epidemic when it was percolating in China early this year. Supposedly the progress of China’s outbreak was covered in more than a dozen separate editions of the PDB. “But the alarms appear to have failed to register with the president,” wrote WaPo in late April, “who routinely skips reading the PDB and has at times shown little patience for even the oral summary he takes two or three times per week, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.”
They reported the same thing in February 2018, when the pandemic was still years away. “He rarely if ever reads the President’s Daily Brief,” WaPo claimed, which “could hamper his ability to respond to crises in the most effective manner, intelligence experts warned.” More recently, the Times reported that “He has a short attention span and rarely, if ever, reads intelligence reports, relying instead on conservative media and his friends for information.” That may help explain why Trump is still insisting that he’s never been briefed on the Russian bounties. Fine, sure, it was in the PDB, but you can’t expect him to actually do his homework, even if that homework is a compendium of the most sensitive information about foreign threats known to the U.S. government. That’s not a “briefing.” If you want to “brief” him, you have to tell him.
Which Bolton did, according to the AP. Stay tuned about that.
It’s not just the Times claiming today that the bounty matter was mentioned in the PDB. CNN’s sources say so too. But how did it make it into that document if, as NBC claimed last night, the intel was “not corroborated broadly” and that officials disagreed “about the implications and significance of the plot”? Well, for starters, it’s a matter of dispute whether the intel was strong or weak. (Isn’t it always?) Various officials from John Ratcliffe to Gina Haspel to the National Security Council put out statements last night stressing that the bounty matter is still being investigated, suggesting that it’s sketchy and maybe not worth Trump’s time. But “current and former intelligence officials familiar with the intelligence” told WaPo that the evidence is “less ambiguous than White House officials and some lawmakers have portrayed.” And various former intel officials told CNN that it’s not unusual for the president to be briefed on info that hasn’t been corroborated yet. That’s the nature of intelligence, after all. Rarely do you have smoking-gun proof of what you suspect:
“That’s ridiculous,” the former official said about the White House’s claim, adding that it is “hard to believe” the intelligence community shared what it was hearing about Russia with allies like the British and not at least inform the President that it was a thread they were following… “You don’t put things in the President’s daily brief only when they are completely corroborated and verified because then it is not intelligence anymore; then it’s fact,” David Priess, a former CIA officer during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, told CNN in an interview on Monday. Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff who also served as senior director of the White House Situation Room, said intelligence rarely operates in the world of black and white. Instead, agents and officials often craft “assessments with assigned levels of confidence,” which are “often presented with dissenting views,” said Pfeiffer. The 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden was based on intelligence that some characterized as 50-50, Pfeiffer added.
Notably, the Republican ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, also finds it “very concerning” that Trump wouldn’t have been briefed about an allegation as serious as this: “Anything with any hint of credibility that would endanger our service members, much less put a bounty on their lives, to me should have been briefed immediately to the commander in chief and a plan to deal with that situation.”
Maybe he was briefed by Bolton, though. The question is: If in fact the subject was included in the PDB on February 27, why did none of his in-person briefers mention it to him in their in-person sessions (or did they?). I ask that not to excuse Trump for not doing his homework but to try to gauge how seriously the IC was taking this story. Thornberry seems to think, appropriately, that it’d be a matter of urgent concern even if the evidence wasn’t rock solid. Matters of urgent concern would logically come up in the president’s in-person briefings. Did they?
Exit question: What’s Trump’s best spin if it’s confirmed that the bounties were included in the February 27 PDB? “I didn’t read it”? “I forgot”? Not great either way. What if Bolton testifies before the House (in closed session) that yes, he did brief Trump on it awhile back?


hotair--2020-07-01--WaPo wonders: Why did decades of progressive leadership in Minneapolis create even more inequality?

You had us at progressive leadership , Washington Post .
This analysis of the abject failure of a half-century of progressive control of the Twin Cities — and for that matter , increasingly radical progressive control — carries more than a whiff of an assumption that failure was only correlative rather than causative .
How could inequality have gotten worse , Tracy Jan wonders , especially when state policy also applied progressive principles to the issue ?
Taxes , for decades , have been redistributed from wealthy suburbs to poorer communities to combat inequality — an effort bolstered in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rich .
The result : more money for schools , affordable housing and social services in lower-income neighborhoods .
But the prosperity fueled by the region ’ s Fortune 500 companies and progressive policies has not translated into economic equality .
Instead , the wealth gap between Minneapolis ’ s largely white population and the city ’ s black residents has deepened , producing some of the nation ’ s widest racial disparities in income , employment and homeownership .
… The typical black family in the Twin Cities earned $ 39,851 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income for African Americans nationally and less than half as much as the typical white family income of $ 82,371 , which is much higher than white households nationally , according to the NAACP report .
A quarter of black households lived in poverty , five times the poverty rate for white households .
Jan reports that some experts claim that this shows the depth of structural racism in America : There ’ s an inherent flaw in this argument , actually two , although it appears that it neither occurs to Jan. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact ” ignores that things got worse on this score over the past half-century or more of progressive control — worse even when compared to national data on general inequality .
That data related to wealth gaps , but income inequality has also risen at a much slower rate than Jan argues has taken place in Minneapolis .
Furthermore , as the Washington Post itself reported last year , the states with the highest amplitude for growing inequality had one thing in common .
And it wasn ’ t red-state status , either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has hit its highest level since the Census Bureau started tracking it more than five decades ago , according to data released Thursday , even as the nation ’ s poverty and unemployment rates are at historic lows .
The gulf is starkest in wealthy regions along both coasts such as New York , Connecticut , California and Washington , D.C. , as well as in areas with widespread poverty , such as Puerto Rico and Louisiana .
Equality was highest in Utah , Alaska and Iowa .
Other than Louisiana , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were all states not just that vote Democrat in presidential elections , but have become Democratic one-party fiefdoms .
All of them have applied progressive policies in the same way the Twin Cities and the state of Minnesota have , most of them for decades .
And the results have been uniformly the same — failure and decline , at least in terms of inequality .
This brings us back to the issue of correlation versus causation .
Just how much did inequality get worse in spite of progressive policies — and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive policies ?
We can start perhaps with the Great Society programs that were supposed to win the war on poverty on a national basis , but there seems to be some specific correlation to progressive governance on a state and local area .
Could it be that progressive policies that seize capital from the private sector and redistribute it on progressive priorities create lost opportunities for upward mobility and dynamic improvement ?
The states without progressive control — Utah , Alaska , and Iowa — certainly had better outcomes .
Jan does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most part , though , Jan promotes the idea that progressives simply haven ’ t gone far enough .
Rather than promote equity and equality , they now want programs that explicitly seize wealth from whites and transfer it to African-Americans — and only African-Americans : Perhaps a simpler explanation suffices .
The policy direction of the last fifty-plus years has proven to be a devastating failure .
Rather than double down on progressivism , perhaps the state and Twin Cities should look at the examples where equality actually improved — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the very least , it can ’ t be any worse than what we have here now .

You had us at progressive leadership, Washington Post. This analysis of the abject failure of a half-century of progressive control of the Twin Cities — and for that matter, increasingly radical progressive control — carries more than a whiff of an assumption that failure was only correlative rather than causative. How could inequality have gotten worse, Tracy Jan wonders, especially when state policy also applied progressive principles to the issue?
Taxes, for decades, have been redistributed from wealthy suburbs to poorer communities to combat inequality — an effort bolstered in recent years by raising state income taxes on the rich. The result: more money for schools, affordable housing and social services in lower-income neighborhoods. But the prosperity fueled by the region’s Fortune 500 companies and progressive policies has not translated into economic equality. Instead, the wealth gap between Minneapolis’s largely white population and the city’s black residents has deepened, producing some of the nation’s widest racial disparities in income, employment and homeownership. … The typical black family in the Twin Cities earned $39,851 in 2017, lower than the median income for African Americans nationally and less than half as much as the typical white family income of $82,371, which is much higher than white households nationally, according to the NAACP report. A quarter of black households lived in poverty, five times the poverty rate for white households.
Jan reports that some experts claim that this shows the depth of structural racism in America:
Economists, lawyers and civil rights advocates in the Twin Cities say progressive tax policies could not make up for other aspects of structural racism, such as access to credit or jobs. Some say investments in affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods deepened segregation and poverty. Others argue for better enforcement of federal laws to combat discrimination in lending, employment and housing.
There’s an inherent flaw in this argument, actually two, although it appears that it neither occurs to Jan. First, the “policy had no impact” ignores that things got worse on this score over the past half-century or more of progressive control — worse even when compared to national data on general inequality. That data related to wealth gaps, but income inequality has also risen at a much slower rate than Jan argues has taken place in Minneapolis.
Furthermore, as the Washington Post itself reported last year, the states with the highest amplitude for growing inequality had one thing in common. And it wasn’t red-state status, either:
Income inequality in the United States has hit its highest level since the Census Bureau started tracking it more than five decades ago, according to data released Thursday, even as the nation’s poverty and unemployment rates are at historic lows. The gulf is starkest in wealthy regions along both coasts such as New York, Connecticut, California and Washington, D.C., as well as in areas with widespread poverty, such as Puerto Rico and Louisiana. Equality was highest in Utah, Alaska and Iowa.
Other than Louisiana, the worst states and territories for income inequality were all states not just that vote Democrat in presidential elections, but have become Democratic one-party fiefdoms. All of them have applied progressive policies in the same way the Twin Cities and the state of Minnesota have, most of them for decades. And the results have been uniformly the same — failure and decline, at least in terms of inequality.
This brings us back to the issue of correlation versus causation. Just how much did inequality get worse in spite of progressive policies — and how much did it get worse because of progressive policies? We can start perhaps with the Great Society programs that were supposed to win the war on poverty on a national basis, but there seems to be some specific correlation to progressive governance on a state and local area. Could it be that progressive policies that seize capital from the private sector and redistribute it on progressive priorities create lost opportunities for upward mobility and dynamic improvement? The states without progressive control — Utah, Alaska, and Iowa — certainly had better outcomes.
Jan does tiptoe up to that conclusion:
In addition to investing in homeownership programs, Minnesota has created financial incentives for the construction of affordable housing that critics say end up exacerbating segregation. Each year, tens of millions in local and federal subsidies are directed toward poor black, Latino and Southeast Asian neighborhoods in the Twin Cities, Orfield said.
For the most part, though, Jan promotes the idea that progressives simply haven’t gone far enough. Rather than promote equity and equality, they now want programs that explicitly seize wealth from whites and transfer it to African-Americans — and only African-Americans:
The legislature appropriated $35 million to address racial inequities, but lawmakers decided that “equity included every community and their mother,” Belton said. Every marginalized group got in line for the money, Belton said. The Urban League ended up splitting $4.2 million with four other nonprofit organizations, he said, a circumstance that yielded too little to make a significant difference.
Perhaps a simpler explanation suffices. The policy direction of the last fifty-plus years has proven to be a devastating failure. Rather than double down on progressivism, perhaps the state and Twin Cities should look at the examples where equality actually improved — and adopt similar policies for a few years. At the very least, it can’t be any worse than what we have here now.


hotair--2020-07-01--Senate Republicans wonder: Should we replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth as a federal holiday?

Oh man .
This has the makings of one of the sweetest culture-war freakouts of the year , which is saying something given the year we ’ ve had .
I expect nothing less than a 47-minute Tucker Carlson monologue about it on tonight ’ s show .
The debate about this inside the Senate didn ’ t begin as a debate .
It began as a straightforward question last month in the wake of the George Floyd protests : Should America make Juneteenth a federal holiday ?
Answer : Yes , certainly .
It ’ s a slight to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state observance commemorating the end of slavery when they ’ ve been celebrating it informally since 1865 .
One way to show that , well , black lives matter is to make their liberation cause for national celebration .
June 19 , a new holiday for all !
John Cornyn rushed to introduce a bill proposing the idea because Juneteenth specifically recognizes the announcement by the U.S. Army in his home state of Texas that all slaves there were free .
Cornyn ’ s up for reelection in four months in a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look dicey for Republicans as Trump slides in the polls .
Spearheading the campaign to make Juneteenth a federal holiday is an easy way for him to try to impress moderates .
But he ’ s run into a problem in the person of Ron Johnson .
Johnson ’ s okay with adding Juneteenth to the federal calendar but he ’ s not okay with an additional paid holiday for federal workers .
He wants a pay-for on this idea — that is , if we ’ re adding Juneteenth , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we subtract ?
“ In response to a bipartisan effort to give federal workers another day of paid leave by designating Juneteenth a federal holiday , we have offered a counterproposal that does not put us further in debt , ” Johnson said Wednesday .
“ We support celebrating emancipation with a federal holiday , but believe we should eliminate a current holiday in exchange .
We chose Columbus Day as a holiday that is lightly celebrated , and least disruptive to Americans ’ schedules.
” … “ Juneteenth is a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of freedom and equality in America , ” Lankford said .
“ We should celebrate these strides on the federal level while remaining cognizant of the impact the existing 10 federal holidays have on federal services and local businesses.
” “ I just don ’ t think we should be , when we ’ re already blowing a hole in the budget right now , offering another paid day off for federal employees , ” Johnson added .
Cornyn isn ’ t pleased : It is indeed “ problematic.
” Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lightly celebrated federal holiday but some Italian-Americans do celebrate it as a day of ethnic pride .
If Cornyn embraces a “ Juneteenth for Columbus ” swap , he ’ d have to explain himself to them .
More importantly , he ’ d have to explain himself to Trump and Tucker and righties who ’ ll want to know why he ’ s giving ground on “ heritage ” at a moment when mobs are defacing statues of Washington and threatening to tear down statues of Lincoln .
The racial politics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a “ black holiday ” on tap to replace a “ white ” one .
And not just any one .
Columbus is , of course , a recurring target of wokesters who object to honoring a figure who persecuted Native Americans .
Some already refuse to recognize Columbus Day and celebrate Indigenous Peoples ’ Day in October instead .
Just this morning , a statue of Columbus was removed from its perch in front of City Hall in , uh , Columbus , Ohio .
Which raises the question : Did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” swap as a poison pill ?
That is , is he secretly looking to kill off the effort to make Juneteenth a holiday altogether by making the price so politically steep for Republicans that they ’ ll have to abandon the idea ?
Maybe not .
If you look at the calendar of federal holidays you ’ ll see that Columbus Day really is the weakest link in the chain , the holiday that could be removed with the least fuss .
Christmas , Thanksgiving , and New Year ’ s are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward to .
Memorial Day and Veterans Day are sacrosanct , honoring America ’ s troops .
( They could be combined in theory , but no politician would dare slight veterans by removing a day already designated to honor them . )
Independence Day ?
Don ’ t make me laugh .
Washington ’ s Birthday/President ’ s Day is even more closely identified with American heritage than Columbus Day , and thus would be even more “ problematic ” to jettison .
And Martin Luther King Day is untouchable , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more sympathetic to black Americans ’ struggle against racism .
Swapping in Juneteenth for MLK Day would be an insult , tantamount to saying , “ You people are only worth one holiday.
” That leaves Labor Day and Columbus Day .
I ’ m all for killing off Labor Day but the left won ’ t like it for political reasons and the rest of the country won ’ t like it for basic … party reasons .
Labor Day is the unofficial end of summer , the first holiday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrated holiday until Halloween .
It ’ s a day for barbecues and nice weather .
America would miss it .
And so , inevitably , Johnson turned to Columbus Day , the odd man out .
His logic for choosing that holiday to sacrifice instead of the others isn ’ t incomprehensible .
But I ’ m very much open to the poison-pill theory .
Johnson told reporters today that he estimates an extra paid day off for federal workers would cost the feds $ 600 million .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put it in perspective relative to the overall federal budget , this site estimates that Uncle Sam now spends $ 23.7 billion per day overall .
Just shy of $ 1 billion per hour .
After watching his party run trillion-dollar deficits for the past several years and in the midst of an historic spending spree aimed at limiting the economic damage from the coronavirus lockdowns , Johnson ’ s willing to roadblock Cornyn ’ s bill over what amounts to … about 40 minutes ’ worth of federal spending .
Seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t it ?
And no doubt pointless from Cornyn ’ s perspective .
Democrats will absolutely add Juneteenth to the calendar if they take back Congress this fall .
The choice before Republicans is simply whether they want to share some of the credit by doing it now or leave it to Dems to reap the benefits .
Presumably Johnson ’ s bill will get voted down with Republican help and then Cornyn ’ s bill will pass .
And then Trump will sign it into the law — I think .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise you with a needless , politically damaging fight : Here ’ s the Columbus statue in Columbus , Ohio , being removed earlier today .

Oh man. This has the makings of one of the sweetest culture-war freakouts of the year, which is saying something given the year we’ve had.
I expect nothing less than a 47-minute Tucker Carlson monologue about it on tonight’s show.
The debate about this inside the Senate didn’t begin as a debate. It began as a straightforward question last month in the wake of the George Floyd protests: Should America make Juneteenth a federal holiday? Answer: Yes, certainly. It’s a slight to black Americans that we have no formal state observance commemorating the end of slavery when they’ve been celebrating it informally since 1865. One way to show that, well, black lives matter is to make their liberation cause for national celebration. June 19, a new holiday for all!
John Cornyn rushed to introduce a bill proposing the idea because Juneteenth specifically recognizes the announcement by the U.S. Army in his home state of Texas that all slaves there were free. Cornyn’s up for reelection in four months in a state that’s trending blue and beginning to look dicey for Republicans as Trump slides in the polls. Spearheading the campaign to make Juneteenth a federal holiday is an easy way for him to try to impress moderates. But he’s run into a problem in the person of Ron Johnson. Johnson’s okay with adding Juneteenth to the federal calendar but he’s not okay with an additional paid holiday for federal workers. He wants a pay-for on this idea — that is, if we’re adding Juneteenth, we should subtract something else.
But what do we subtract?
Johnson and Oklahoma senator James Lankford have a candidate.
“In response to a bipartisan effort to give federal workers another day of paid leave by designating Juneteenth a federal holiday, we have offered a counterproposal that does not put us further in debt,” Johnson said Wednesday. “We support celebrating emancipation with a federal holiday, but believe we should eliminate a current holiday in exchange. We chose Columbus Day as a holiday that is lightly celebrated, and least disruptive to Americans’ schedules.”… “Juneteenth is a day in our history that redefined the meaning of freedom and equality in America,” Lankford said. “We should celebrate these strides on the federal level while remaining cognizant of the impact the existing 10 federal holidays have on federal services and local businesses.”
“I just don’t think we should be, when we’re already blowing a hole in the budget right now, offering another paid day off for federal employees,” Johnson added. Cornyn isn’t pleased:
Cornyn said swapping in Juneteenth and cutting out Columbus Day “dilutes the message we’re trying to send, which is one of being respectful and honoring and remembering our history.” “I think that’s problematic,” he said of the Johnson counteroffer. “We’re working through all those things right now we just don’t have an answer right this second.”
It is indeed “problematic.” Johnson’s right that Columbus Day is the most lightly celebrated federal holiday but some Italian-Americans do celebrate it as a day of ethnic pride. If Cornyn embraces a “Juneteenth for Columbus” swap, he’d have to explain himself to them. More importantly, he’d have to explain himself to Trump and Tucker and righties who’ll want to know why he’s giving ground on “heritage” at a moment when mobs are defacing statues of Washington and threatening to tear down statues of Lincoln. The racial politics of the trade make it even zestier, with a “black holiday” on tap to replace a “white” one. And not just any one. Columbus is, of course, a recurring target of wokesters who object to honoring a figure who persecuted Native Americans. Some already refuse to recognize Columbus Day and celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day in October instead. Just this morning, a statue of Columbus was removed from its perch in front of City Hall in, uh, Columbus, Ohio.
Which raises the question: Did Johnson offer a “Juneteenth for Columbus” swap as a poison pill? That is, is he secretly looking to kill off the effort to make Juneteenth a holiday altogether by making the price so politically steep for Republicans that they’ll have to abandon the idea?
Maybe not. If you look at the calendar of federal holidays you’ll see that Columbus Day really is the weakest link in the chain, the holiday that could be removed with the least fuss. Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Year’s are total nonstarters, the ones everyone looks forward to. Memorial Day and Veterans Day are sacrosanct, honoring America’s troops. (They could be combined in theory, but no politician would dare slight veterans by removing a day already designated to honor them.) Independence Day? Don’t make me laugh. Washington’s Birthday/President’s Day is even more closely identified with American heritage than Columbus Day, and thus would be even more “problematic” to jettison. And Martin Luther King Day is untouchable, especially at a moment when the public has never been more sympathetic to black Americans’ struggle against racism. Swapping in Juneteenth for MLK Day would be an insult, tantamount to saying, “You people are only worth one holiday.”
That leaves Labor Day and Columbus Day. I’m all for killing off Labor Day but the left won’t like it for political reasons and the rest of the country won’t like it for basic … party reasons. Labor Day is the unofficial end of summer, the first holiday since July 4 and the last widely celebrated holiday until Halloween. It’s a day for barbecues and nice weather. America would miss it. And so, inevitably, Johnson turned to Columbus Day, the odd man out. His logic for choosing that holiday to sacrifice instead of the others isn’t incomprehensible.
But I’m very much open to the poison-pill theory. Johnson told reporters today that he estimates an extra paid day off for federal workers would cost the feds $600 million. That’s a lot of money, sure, but to put it in perspective relative to the overall federal budget, this site estimates that Uncle Sam now spends $23.7 billion per day overall. Just shy of $1 billion per hour. After watching his party run trillion-dollar deficits for the past several years and in the midst of an historic spending spree aimed at limiting the economic damage from the coronavirus lockdowns, Johnson’s willing to roadblock Cornyn’s bill over what amounts to … about 40 minutes’ worth of federal spending.
Seems a little disingenuous in context, doesn’t it? And no doubt pointless from Cornyn’s perspective. Democrats will absolutely add Juneteenth to the calendar if they take back Congress this fall. The choice before Republicans is simply whether they want to share some of the credit by doing it now or leave it to Dems to reap the benefits. Presumably Johnson’s bill will get voted down with Republican help and then Cornyn’s bill will pass. And then Trump will sign it into the law — I think. But you never know how he might surprise you with a needless, politically damaging fight:
.@LindseyGrahamSC says Trump should *not* veto the NDAA. “The issue of Army bases being named after Confederate generals is a legitimate concern in the times in which we live. I'm okay with a process that the Senate came up with. And there's a lot of good things in this bill.” — Lindsay Wise (@lindsaywise) July 1, 2020
Here’s the Columbus statue in Columbus, Ohio, being removed earlier today.


hotair--2020-07-01--NY Times tech journalist complains about online attack, omits that the comment was a paraphrase of h

NY Times tech journalist complains about online attack, omits that the comment was a paraphrase of her own words

NY Times ’ technology reporter Taylor Lorenz has written a Twitter thread begging for help because she is being treated rudely by a man named Balaji Srinivasan on Twitter : Wow , that does sound mean .
What ’ s up with that guy ?
The self pity goes on for several more tweets and plenty of people are chiming in to say supportive things about how sexist this is : There ’ s just one problem .
Taylor Lorenz strategically cut off Srinivasan ’ s tweet so you can ’ t see what he was responding to .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the part Lorenz left out .
Notice where he pulled this language from .
As you can see , Srinivasan was paraphrasing what Taylor Lorenz tweeted about a woman CEO named Steph Korey .
Korey was making some critical remarks about “ younger reporters ” while also saying that “ the overwhelming majority of journalists are dedicated and wonderful truth seekers.
” And for that , Lorenz lashed out at her .
So if Srinivasan ’ s tweet seemed harsh , he was really just turning Lorenz ’ own words back on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steph Korey ’ s comments as “ incoherent ” Lorenz defended the integrity of journalists .
Some pointed out that even if Lorenz stands by what she said , leaving out the fact that Srinivasan was paraphrasing her own words was pretty dishonest .
Others were more blunt : There ’ s also the hypocrisy of her stance on reaching out to people privately if you have an issue with them .
Did she do that with Korey before tweeting about her ?
I was curious if we ’ d ever written anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have .
Last year she wrote a piece for the Atlantic which listed a bunch of right-wing extremists being banned by Instagram : That piece did get corrected after publication so that Farrakhan is no longer identified as a right-wing extremist .
Since moving to the NY Times , Lorenz seems to cover news about YouTube influencers and TikTok .
Here ’ s a sample of her most recent piece on the social justice efforts to deplatform Shane Dawson and Jeffree Star : This weekend , the YouTube beauty world erupted into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Jeffree Star , 34 , two of the biggest stars on the platform , faced renewed backlash after allegations of racism , the sexualization of minors and back-stabbing swirled .
The public call-out has resulted in an unfollow campaign that has led to both losing hundreds of thousands of followers… “ For the longest time Jeffree and Shane have been untouchable , ” said Will Larkins , a 15-year-old who provides commentary on internet drama and has been documenting these events on his Twitter handle @ OhMyGodExposeU .
“ They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are finally fed up and realizing that we can ’ t just keep giving people like this a platform.
” … As many older white millennial beauty influencers lose relevance , a newer , more diverse crop of creators is stepping in .
“ You have YouTubers like Raw Beauty Kristi , Jackie Aina , Nyma Tang , who are not problematic , and that ’ s just to name a few , ” said Ashlye Kyle , 35 , who runs a YouTube drama channel focused on the beauty world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to gain more influence.
” If you want the latest drama straight from the YouTube influencer world , you know where to get it .
But if you want a straight recounting of why someone is saying mean things about Taylor Lorenz on Twitter , her Twitter feed may not be the bet place to get the full story .

NY Times’ technology reporter Taylor Lorenz has written a Twitter thread begging for help because she is being treated rudely by a man named Balaji Srinivasan on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1278387331033174018
Wow, that does sound mean. What’s up with that guy?
https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1278387561065598976
The self pity goes on for several more tweets and plenty of people are chiming in to say supportive things about how sexist this is:
this is sexist and disgusting and i am sorry you have to deal with this — David Mack (@davidmackau) July 1, 2020
There’s just one problem. Taylor Lorenz strategically cut off Srinivasan’s tweet so you can’t see what he was responding to. Here’s his original tweet, including the part Lorenz left out. Notice where he pulled this language from.
As you can see, Srinivasan was paraphrasing what Taylor Lorenz tweeted about a woman CEO named Steph Korey. Korey was making some critical remarks about “younger reporters” while also saying that “the overwhelming majority of journalists are dedicated and wonderful truth seekers.” And for that, Lorenz lashed out at her. So if Srinivasan’s tweet seemed harsh, he was really just turning Lorenz’ own words back on her.
When challenged about her characterization of Steph Korey’s comments as “incoherent” Lorenz defended the integrity of journalists.
https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1278330965132271616
Some pointed out that even if Lorenz stands by what she said, leaving out the fact that Srinivasan was paraphrasing her own words was pretty dishonest.
.@TaylorLorenz I like you and respect your work, but leaving out the rest of that screenshot where its clear that @balajis is simply repeating the same words you wrote to bash a woman CEO, is exactly illustrative of his larger point. https://t.co/V2lq5kF0EV — Siqi Chen (@blader) July 1, 2020
Others were more blunt:
https://twitter.com/harshmadhusudan/status/1278420195585867776
There’s also the hypocrisy of her stance on reaching out to people privately if you have an issue with them. Did she do that with Korey before tweeting about her?
Taylor Lorenz, @balajis parodied you attacking & picking on another founder:
– You bashed her fully coherent opinion as incoherent
– You incorrectly denigrated her title—could've just googled
– You're not reaching out to her privately Practice what you preach! Enough is enough. https://t.co/thfldOMkGV — Suhail (@Suhail) July 1, 2020
Here’s Srinivasan’s summary of the incident:
Taylor Lorenz: – Attacks a female CEO out of the blue
– Made a factual error (@stephkorey is still Away CEO!)
– Violated NYT social media guidelines
– Then omits her own attack & plays victim (https://t.co/y2NlFb3Lf0) This is how it works. These "journalists" are sociopaths. pic.twitter.com/Jum5FLB7pH — balajis.com (@balajis) July 1, 2020
I was curious if we’d ever written anything about Taylor Lorenz and it turns out we have. Last year she wrote a piece for the Atlantic which listed a bunch of right-wing extremists being banned by Instagram:
In an effort to contain misinformation and extremism that has increasingly spread across the platform, Instagram has banned several prominent right-wing extremists. Specifically, Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, have banned Alex Jones, Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Paul Nehlen, and Louis Farrakhan…
That piece did get corrected after publication so that Farrakhan is no longer identified as a right-wing extremist. Since moving to the NY Times, Lorenz seems to cover news about YouTube influencers and TikTok. Here’s a sample of her most recent piece on the social justice efforts to deplatform Shane Dawson and Jeffree Star:
This weekend, the YouTube beauty world erupted into drama. Shane Dawson, 31, and Jeffree Star, 34, two of the biggest stars on the platform, faced renewed backlash after allegations of racism, the sexualization of minors and back-stabbing swirled. The public call-out has resulted in an unfollow campaign that has led to both losing hundreds of thousands of followers… “For the longest time Jeffree and Shane have been untouchable,” said Will Larkins, a 15-year-old who provides commentary on internet drama and has been documenting these events on his Twitter handle @OhMyGodExposeU. “They’ve gotten away with everything. I think people are finally fed up and realizing that we can’t just keep giving people like this a platform.”… As many older white millennial beauty influencers lose relevance, a newer, more diverse crop of creators is stepping in. “You have YouTubers like Raw Beauty Kristi, Jackie Aina, Nyma Tang, who are not problematic, and that’s just to name a few,” said Ashlye Kyle, 35, who runs a YouTube drama channel focused on the beauty world. “I think that they’re going to gain more influence.”
If you want the latest drama straight from the YouTube influencer world, you know where to get it. But if you want a straight recounting of why someone is saying mean things about Taylor Lorenz on Twitter, her Twitter feed may not be the bet place to get the full story.