hotair--2020-05-20--House Republican: Let's impeach Judge Sullivan over Flynn case

Impeachment fever is back , baby !
This time around , though , the other side has it , and its target is on the bench rather than in the Oval Office .
House Republican Bill Johnson of Ohio announced his intent to seek an impeachment hearing for Judge Emmet Sullivan for his recent orders in the Michael Flynn case , saying that Congress needs to remove him for “ tyranny ” : Rep. Bill Johnson of Marietta says he ’ ll introduce a resolution seeking an impeachment inquiry of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan , arguing that Sullivan has “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of Flynn , who admitted lying to the FBI but later withdrew his guilty plea .
Sullivan appointed a third party attorney to present legal arguments against dismissing Flynn ’ s case after Attorney General William Barr declared the Justice Department was dropping charges against Flynn .
A statement Johnson released on Wednesday declared that Sullivan was was making his own rules , and pronounced it “ tyranny.
” “ Judge Sullivan gets to interpret the law ; but he does not get to say how to enforce the law , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case have made clear they want the matter dropped .
Judge Sullivan appears to be attempting to continue this case as ‘ Sullivan v. Flynn , ’ and that can ’ t happen !
” Let ’ s just stipulate up front that we can safely list this in the Things That Just Ain ’ t Gon na Happen column .
Not that the House doesn ’ t have the authority to impeach a judge — the Constitution clearly gives them that authority , and the House has used it on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their current members , Alcee Hastings ( D-FL ) , was removed from the bench in 1989 through impeachment and Senate conviction , in fact .
Three years later , he won a House seat and has been around ever since .
It won ’ t happen now for a couple of reasons — one political , one substantive .
Politically , it ’ s a non-starter with Democrats in control of the House .
Any such effort would have to go through the House Judiciary Committee , whose chair Jerrold Nadler might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoax that precipitated Michael Flynn ’ s prosecution .
( Adam Schiff clearly has the most invested in that discredited narrative . )
Even if Republicans took advantage of a momentary plurality on the House floor to push this resolution , Nadler can and certainly will bury it .
The only person Nadler ’ s interested in impeaching is Donald Trump .
Substantively it doesn ’ t meet the true criteria for impeachment , either .
Historically , the House has used this mechanism for outright corruption , as was the case with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also legitimate grounds , at least theoretically if not practically , but either would have to be sustained for the House to take credible action against a federal judge .
Using impeachment to punish a judge over the actions in a single case smacks of politicizing the bench , and it sets precedents that both sides of the political divide would live to regret setting .
Appellate courts exist to deal with abuses in individual cases , and the federal judiciary has its own enforcement mechanisms for bad behavior .
This case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention of higher Article III authorities , which should be given the chance to resolve the situation for itself .
With that said , though , one can ’ t fault Johnson for being outraged over Sullivan ’ s abuses in this case .
Jonathan Turley wonders today where everyone else ’ s outrage over abusive prosecution and judgment has gone , especially in the media : For decades , the legal community has decried common practices used by prosecutors to coerce pleas from defendants .
Prosecutors often stack up charges and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty .
There was a time when such abuses were regularly called out in leading newspapers .
These are not those times .
The Flynn case was a textbook example of these abuses but media commentators quickly adopted the “ anyone who pleads guilty must be guilty ” mantra .
Suddenly , the “ proof is in the plea ” regardless of false representations , withheld evidence , and conflicting findings in the Flynn case .
The only acceptable take in the media is that the motion to dismiss the Flynn case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This narrative is only possible by ignoring the long-standing questions over the handling and charge in the case .
Indeed , it is telling how both controlling law and countervailing facts have been uniformly ( and knowingly ) ignored in order to portray the case as a virtual immaculate prosecution .
… “ In like Flynn ” once meant that you lived a charmed life of access or success .
Today , it appears the media has adopted a chilling “ out like Flynn ” view , meaning some people simply do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , it is now an article of faith to dismiss any question about the conduct of the prosecutors in the Flynn case , even if it means adopting the long discredited view that only the guilty plead guilty .
The masks have dropped from many faces in this Russia-collusion hoax .
Turley ’ s one of the few media commentators ( CBS ’ on-air legal analyst ) honest enough to call it out .

Impeachment fever is back, baby! This time around, though, the other side has it, and its target is on the bench rather than in the Oval Office. House Republican Bill Johnson of Ohio announced his intent to seek an impeachment hearing for Judge Emmet Sullivan for his recent orders in the Michael Flynn case, saying that Congress needs to remove him for “tyranny”:
Rep. Bill Johnson of Marietta says he’ll introduce a resolution seeking an impeachment inquiry of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, arguing that Sullivan has “far exceeded his authority” in the case of Flynn, who admitted lying to the FBI but later withdrew his guilty plea. Sullivan appointed a third party attorney to present legal arguments against dismissing Flynn’s case after Attorney General William Barr declared the Justice Department was dropping charges against Flynn. A statement Johnson released on Wednesday declared that Sullivan was was making his own rules, and pronounced it “tyranny.” “Judge Sullivan gets to interpret the law; but he does not get to say how to enforce the law,” said Johnson. “Both parties in this case have made clear they want the matter dropped. Judge Sullivan appears to be attempting to continue this case as ‘Sullivan v. Flynn,’ and that can’t happen!”
Let’s just stipulate up front that we can safely list this in the Things That Just Ain’t Gonna Happen column. Not that the House doesn’t have the authority to impeach a judge — the Constitution clearly gives them that authority, and the House has used it on a small number of occasions. One of their current members, Alcee Hastings (D-FL), was removed from the bench in 1989 through impeachment and Senate conviction, in fact. Three years later, he won a House seat and has been around ever since.
It won’t happen now for a couple of reasons — one political, one substantive. Politically, it’s a non-starter with Democrats in control of the House. Any such effort would have to go through the House Judiciary Committee, whose chair Jerrold Nadler might have the second-biggest investment in the Russia-collusion hoax that precipitated Michael Flynn’s prosecution. (Adam Schiff clearly has the most invested in that discredited narrative.) Even if Republicans took advantage of a momentary plurality on the House floor to push this resolution, Nadler can and certainly will bury it. The only person Nadler’s interested in impeaching is Donald Trump.
Substantively it doesn’t meet the true criteria for impeachment, either. Historically, the House has used this mechanism for outright corruption, as was the case with Hastings. Incompetence and abuse of power are also legitimate grounds, at least theoretically if not practically, but either would have to be sustained for the House to take credible action against a federal judge. Using impeachment to punish a judge over the actions in a single case smacks of politicizing the bench, and it sets precedents that both sides of the political divide would live to regret setting. Appellate courts exist to deal with abuses in individual cases, and the federal judiciary has its own enforcement mechanisms for bad behavior. This case has only barely come to the official attention of higher Article III authorities, which should be given the chance to resolve the situation for itself.
With that said, though, one can’t fault Johnson for being outraged over Sullivan’s abuses in this case. Jonathan Turley wonders today where everyone else’s outrage over abusive prosecution and judgment has gone, especially in the media:
For decades, the legal community has decried common practices used by prosecutors to coerce pleas from defendants. Prosecutors often stack up charges and then drain defendants until they agree to pleading guilty. There was a time when such abuses were regularly called out in leading newspapers. These are not those times. The Flynn case was a textbook example of these abuses but media commentators quickly adopted the “anyone who pleads guilty must be guilty” mantra. Suddenly, the “proof is in the plea” regardless of false representations, withheld evidence, and conflicting findings in the Flynn case. The only acceptable take in the media is that the motion to dismiss the Flynn case is an outrageous politicalization of the justice system. This narrative is only possible by ignoring the long-standing questions over the handling and charge in the case. Indeed, it is telling how both controlling law and countervailing facts have been uniformly (and knowingly) ignored in order to portray the case as a virtual immaculate prosecution. … “In like Flynn” once meant that you lived a charmed life of access or success. Today, it appears the media has adopted a chilling “out like Flynn” view, meaning some people simply do not deserve fair judicial or media consideration. Indeed, it is now an article of faith to dismiss any question about the conduct of the prosecutors in the Flynn case, even if it means adopting the long discredited view that only the guilty plead guilty.
The masks have dropped from many faces in this Russia-collusion hoax. Turley’s one of the few media commentators (CBS’ on-air legal analyst) honest enough to call it out.


hotair--2020-05-20--Ron DeSantis rips media on coronavirus: You people waxed poetically about how my state would be just

Ron DeSantis rips media on coronavirus: You people waxed poetically about how my state would be just like New York

The more Andrew Cuomo ’ s myriad failures are glossed over by an adoring press , the more unjust it seems that there hasn ’ t been a reconsideration of DeSantis ’ s comparative success .
Partisanship explains most of that double standard but I think there ’ s also an element in which the tone was set early for each man ’ s narrative .
Cuomo benefited from the fact that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio performed terribly *and* made a series of idiotic statements/public appearances in early March as the outbreak was exploding , allowing Cuomo come off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison .
He performed terribly too — follow the first link above — but at least sounded competent .
Thus was the epic saga set in motion of Andrew Cuomo , Savior of New York .
No subsequent mistakes , including the debacle of sending infected residents back into nursing homes , could shake it .
DeSantis had the opposite problem , starting off on a bad note and then performing well .
I still don ’ t understand his decision in March not to act more aggressively to shut down Spring Break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risked spreading the virus , but it ’ s hard to argue with Florida ’ s results since then .
It ’ s in the bottom half of U.S. states in both cases and deaths per capita despite having an outsized share of senior citizens in the population .
Relatedly , DeSantis had the eminent good sense to prevent sick nursing-home residents from being sent back to their facilities after they were diagnosed with COVID-19 .
That decision alone may have saved thousands of lives .
But his initial delay on Spring Break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ron DeSantis , Bane of Florida .
Today he let the media have it .
Rich Lowry has a long interview with DeSantis today about his state ’ s management of the epidemic that has three key insights .
One is decentralization .
DeSantis took a mini-federalist approach to lockdowns , recognizing that high-density areas like Miami may need more stringent controls than the panhandle .
So he let local leaders take the lead before finally issuing a watered-down statewide stay-at-home order later .
Two is his skepticism of sweeping lockdowns to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told Lowry , so he wanted to move slowly on them .
Subsequent data has shown that Americans began practicing social distancing even before lockdown orders went into effect , raising the question of how much they were needed .
That happened in Florida too , per the WSJ : Many Floridians appear to have reached a similar conclusion .
Analysis of cellphone location data by companies like Descartes Labs Inc. and SafeGraph Inc. shows that residents ’ daily mobility began dropping sharply after March 15 , as it did in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , it had declined more than 50 % statewide from an established baseline , according to a compilation of such data by a lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison .
In Miami-Dade and Broward counties , it had decreased more than 80 % .
It was a period of grim media coverage of the pandemic , with stories of Italian military trucks ferrying coffins and fears of escalation in New York City… On April 1 , Mr. DeSantis bowed to public pressure from residents and some officials and issued a statewide stay-at-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , much of the state already had been buttoned up for weeks .
One footnote about lockdowns , though .
If you read Pro Publica ’ s scathing critique of Cuomo and de Blasio last weekend , you ’ ll remember that their key failing was in not moving as quickly as San Francisco in issuing a stay-at-home order , a decision that may have produced a much higher death toll as the virus spread silently .
Florida may have been lucky in that it was probably seeded with fewer cases by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain critical threshold of infections , it might be that the population itself can control the outbreak through voluntary social distancing .
Beyond that threshold , a meltdown may be unavoidable .
As for DeSantis ’ s third insight , that had to do with nursing homes .
Andrew Cuomo , pay attention : Florida , DeSantis notes , “ required all staff and any worker that entered to be screened for COVID illness , temperature checks .
Anybody that ’ s symptomatic would just simply not be allowed to go in.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPE .
“ We put our money where our mouth is , ” he continues .
“ We recognized that a lot of these facilities were just not prepared to deal with something like this .
So we ended up sending a total of 10 million masks just to our long-term-care facilities , a million gloves , half a million face shields.
” Florida fortified the hospitals with PPE , too , but DeSantis realized that it wouldn ’ t do the hospitals any good if infection in the nursing homes ran out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send PPE to the nursing homes , and they can prevent an outbreak there , that ’ s going to do more to lower the burden on hospitals than me just sending them another 500,000 N95 masks.
” It ’ s impossible to overstate the importance of this insight , and how much it drove Florida ’ s approach , counter to the policies of New York and other states .
( “ I don ’ t want to cast aspersions on others , but it is incredible to me , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health official , “ that Governor Cuomo [ and others ] are able to kind of just avoid real questions about their policies early on to actually send individuals into the nursing home , which is completely counter to the real data.
” ) Florida recognized , quite intuitively , that concentrated populations of senior citizens were far more prone to lethal outcomes than the wider population and it acted accordingly , not just in nursing homes but in consulting with retirement communities on taking precautions .
It paid off .
Hopefully DeSantis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward .

The more Andrew Cuomo’s myriad failures are glossed over by an adoring press, the more unjust it seems that there hasn’t been a reconsideration of DeSantis’s comparative success.
Partisanship explains most of that double standard but I think there’s also an element in which the tone was set early for each man’s narrative. Cuomo benefited from the fact that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio performed terribly *and* made a series of idiotic statements/public appearances in early March as the outbreak was exploding, allowing Cuomo come off as the adult in the room by comparison. He performed terribly too — follow the first link above — but at least sounded competent. Thus was the epic saga set in motion of Andrew Cuomo, Savior of New York. No subsequent mistakes, including the debacle of sending infected residents back into nursing homes, could shake it.
DeSantis had the opposite problem, starting off on a bad note and then performing well. I still don’t understand his decision in March not to act more aggressively to shut down Spring Break, knowing how socializing among college kids risked spreading the virus, but it’s hard to argue with Florida’s results since then. It’s in the bottom half of U.S. states in both cases and deaths per capita despite having an outsized share of senior citizens in the population. Relatedly, DeSantis had the eminent good sense to prevent sick nursing-home residents from being sent back to their facilities after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. That decision alone may have saved thousands of lives. But his initial delay on Spring Break set in motion a second unstoppable saga, Ron DeSantis, Bane of Florida.
Today he let the media have it.
Good stuff from DeSantis here. pic.twitter.com/ESvo6Pb1uw — Noam Blum (@neontaster) May 20, 2020
Rich Lowry has a long interview with DeSantis today about his state’s management of the epidemic that has three key insights. One is decentralization. DeSantis took a mini-federalist approach to lockdowns, recognizing that high-density areas like Miami may need more stringent controls than the panhandle. So he let local leaders take the lead before finally issuing a watered-down statewide stay-at-home order later. Two is his skepticism of sweeping lockdowns to begin with. They were unprecedented, he told Lowry, so he wanted to move slowly on them. Subsequent data has shown that Americans began practicing social distancing even before lockdown orders went into effect, raising the question of how much they were needed. That happened in Florida too, per the WSJ:
Many Floridians appear to have reached a similar conclusion. Analysis of cellphone location data by companies like Descartes Labs Inc. and SafeGraph Inc. shows that residents’ daily mobility began dropping sharply after March 15, as it did in other parts of the U.S. By the following week, it had declined more than 50% statewide from an established baseline, according to a compilation of such data by a lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In Miami-Dade and Broward counties, it had decreased more than 80%. It was a period of grim media coverage of the pandemic, with stories of Italian military trucks ferrying coffins and fears of escalation in New York City… On April 1, Mr. DeSantis bowed to public pressure from residents and some officials and issued a statewide stay-at-home order, effective April 3. By then, much of the state already had been buttoned up for weeks.
One footnote about lockdowns, though. If you read Pro Publica’s scathing critique of Cuomo and de Blasio last weekend, you’ll remember that their key failing was in not moving as quickly as San Francisco in issuing a stay-at-home order, a decision that may have produced a much higher death toll as the virus spread silently. Florida may have been lucky in that it was probably seeded with fewer cases by mid-March than New York was. Beneath a certain critical threshold of infections, it might be that the population itself can control the outbreak through voluntary social distancing. Beyond that threshold, a meltdown may be unavoidable.
As for DeSantis’s third insight, that had to do with nursing homes. Andrew Cuomo, pay attention:
Florida, DeSantis notes, “required all staff and any worker that entered to be screened for COVID illness, temperature checks. Anybody that’s symptomatic would just simply not be allowed to go in.” And it required staff to wear PPE. “We put our money where our mouth is,” he continues. “We recognized that a lot of these facilities were just not prepared to deal with something like this. So we ended up sending a total of 10 million masks just to our long-term-care facilities, a million gloves, half a million face shields.” Florida fortified the hospitals with PPE, too, but DeSantis realized that it wouldn’t do the hospitals any good if infection in the nursing homes ran out of control : “If I can send PPE to the nursing homes, and they can prevent an outbreak there, that’s going to do more to lower the burden on hospitals than me just sending them another 500,000 N95 masks.” It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this insight, and how much it drove Florida’s approach, counter to the policies of New York and other states. (“I don’t want to cast aspersions on others, but it is incredible to me, it’s shocking,” says the Florida health official, “that Governor Cuomo [and others] are able to kind of just avoid real questions about their policies early on to actually send individuals into the nursing home, which is completely counter to the real data.”)
Florida recognized, quite intuitively, that concentrated populations of senior citizens were far more prone to lethal outcomes than the wider population and it acted accordingly, not just in nursing homes but in consulting with retirement communities on taking precautions. It paid off. Hopefully DeSantis will get the credit he deserves going forward.


hotair--2020-05-20--NY Times: Iran is dialing back on provocation, hoping for a new U.S. President next year

The NY Times published a story yesterday with the headline “ Iran Quietly Lowers the Temperature With U.S. ” The story makes the case that while Iran hasn ’ t really changed internally , it has realized that squaring off with the Trump administration has not been good for Iran .
As a result , Iran has decided to dial back the provocation and hope that it will have a new President to deal with after the U.S. election .
In fact , the Times reports Iran is trying to avoid doing anything that might help keep Trump in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign ministry said that even the powerful Quds Force — the branch of the Revolutionary Guards that runs proxy militias from Iraq to Lebanon — had been ordered to “ act conservatively ” and remain in “ a holding pattern ” until November .
Iran has also concluded that escalating tensions with the United States could provoke armed conflict which , aside from being painful for Iran , could benefit Mr. Trump politically , improving his re-election chances , according to people familiar with the policy… After years of increasing tensions that nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its approach to the West , shifting from a policy of provocation to one of limited cooperation .
The change reflects an effort to avoid direct confrontation with the United States that the Iranians say could benefit President Trump in the November election… The Trump administration is taking credit for the change in Iran ’ s tune and it ’ s pretty clear they deserve at least some of that credit .
The major change in Iran ’ s approach comes after the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Suddenly Iran started thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its actions .
And of course it didn ’ t help that Iran was hit with a severe outbreak of the coronavirus , further damaging it ’ s already weak economy .
But today the Wall Street Journal reports Iran continues to support the corrupt , anti-American Venezuelan regime .
It is in the process of sending tankers full of gasoline to Venezuela and threatening the U.S. not to interfere : The possibility of new U.S. sanctions and legal action comes as five Iranian gasoline tankers make their way toward Venezuela , offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Nicolás Maduro , according to U.S. and Iranian officials and shipping website TankerTrackers.com Iran has warned it will retaliate against the U.S. if it blocks its ships .
As crude markets recover from the disarray of a demand-eroding coronavirus pandemic and a devastating price rout , the Islamic Republic has seized an opportunity to use its oil to curry favor with U.S. rivals , including Venezuela and Syria .
So Iran ’ s mouth is still writing checks Iran ’ s military can ’ t cash .
It may be trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways but old habits die hard .
In case you ’ re wondering why Venezuela , where gas is generally subsidized so that it costs only a few cents per gallon , is buying tankers full of gasoline , that ’ s because domestic production has collapsed .
Last week the NY Times reported that people were waiting in line for hours to get gas at the old subsidized price , but the government can ’ t keep up .
Venezuelan gasoline officially remains by far the cheapest in the world , still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyperinflation at a rate equivalent to 0.00000002 cents per gallon .
The state-owned gasoline stations still sell limited quantities of fuel at this price , but motorists must queue days in advance for even a chance to buy it .
In practice , drivers who can not or will not sit in lines for days are forced to pay up to $ 80 for a five-gallon can of fuel on the black market run by the Venezuelan military .
A U.S. academic who is an expert on Venezuela ’ s oil industry told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give gasoline away for free , eventually you ’ re going to end up running into trouble.
” Yes , and that applies to everything else the government decided to give away for free .
If only Bernie Sanders was reading the NY Times .

The NY Times published a story yesterday with the headline “Iran Quietly Lowers the Temperature With U.S.” The story makes the case that while Iran hasn’t really changed internally, it has realized that squaring off with the Trump administration has not been good for Iran. As a result, Iran has decided to dial back the provocation and hope that it will have a new President to deal with after the U.S. election. In fact, the Times reports Iran is trying to avoid doing anything that might help keep Trump in office:
An adviser to Iran’s foreign ministry said that even the powerful Quds Force — the branch of the Revolutionary Guards that runs proxy militias from Iraq to Lebanon — had been ordered to “act conservatively” and remain in “a holding pattern” until November.
Iran has also concluded that escalating tensions with the United States could provoke armed conflict which, aside from being painful for Iran, could benefit Mr. Trump politically, improving his re-election chances, according to people familiar with the policy…
After years of increasing tensions that nearly led to war, Iran has moderated its approach to the West, shifting from a policy of provocation to one of limited cooperation. The change reflects an effort to avoid direct confrontation with the United States that the Iranians say could benefit President Trump in the November election…
The Trump administration is taking credit for the change in Iran’s tune and it’s pretty clear they deserve at least some of that credit. The major change in Iran’s approach comes after the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Suddenly Iran started thinking about the price it could pay for its actions.
Tehran was caught by surprise when the Americans retaliated for the killing of an American contractor in Iraq in December by killing the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. The United States threatened a disproportionate response if another American was killed, something Iran could ill afford.
And of course it didn’t help that Iran was hit with a severe outbreak of the coronavirus, further damaging it’s already weak economy. But today the Wall Street Journal reports Iran continues to support the corrupt, anti-American Venezuelan regime. It is in the process of sending tankers full of gasoline to Venezuela and threatening the U.S. not to interfere:
The possibility of new U.S. sanctions and legal action comes as five Iranian gasoline tankers make their way toward Venezuela, offering a potential lifeline to the embattled regime of President Nicolás Maduro, according to U.S. and Iranian officials and shipping website TankerTrackers.com Iran has warned it will retaliate against the U.S. if it blocks its ships. As crude markets recover from the disarray of a demand-eroding coronavirus pandemic and a devastating price rout, the Islamic Republic has seized an opportunity to use its oil to curry favor with U.S. rivals, including Venezuela and Syria.
So Iran’s mouth is still writing checks Iran’s military can’t cash. It may be trying to dial back the provocation in some ways but old habits die hard.
In case you’re wondering why Venezuela, where gas is generally subsidized so that it costs only a few cents per gallon, is buying tankers full of gasoline, that’s because domestic production has collapsed. Last week the NY Times reported that people were waiting in line for hours to get gas at the old subsidized price, but the government can’t keep up.
Venezuelan gasoline officially remains by far the cheapest in the world, still priced by the government after years of hyperinflation at a rate equivalent to 0.00000002 cents per gallon. The state-owned gasoline stations still sell limited quantities of fuel at this price, but motorists must queue days in advance for even a chance to buy it. In practice, drivers who cannot or will not sit in lines for days are forced to pay up to $80 for a five-gallon can of fuel on the black market run by the Venezuelan military.
A U.S. academic who is an expert on Venezuela’s oil industry told the NY Times, “If you give gasoline away for free, eventually you’re going to end up running into trouble.” Yes, and that applies to everything else the government decided to give away for free. If only Bernie Sanders was reading the NY Times.


hotair--2020-05-20--Baltimore mayoral race shows why things will never get better in Charm City

Every time the City of Baltimore starts getting my hopes up that life will slowly start to improve there and corruption and crime are beginning to wane they somehow find a way to discourage me yet again .
In this case , it ’ s the current state of the race to elect a new mayor .
The current mayor , Jack Young , assumed office after his predecessor , Catherine Pugh , departed to embark on her new career as a prisoner after confessing to corruption and tax evasion charges .
Young initially announced that he was only planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished Pugh ’ s term this year , though he later said he would consider another term and still shows up in the polling .
Speaking of polling , that ’ s where the depressing news comes into play .
The latest survey highlighted at the Baltimore Sun shows that the race is coming down to a three-way tie at the moment .
It ’ s between former Obama Treasury official Mary Miller , City Council President Brandon Scott and… wait for it… former Mayor Sheila Dixon .
The contest to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a three-way Democratic primary race between an experienced but controversial former mayor , a millionaire business executive and a youthful City Council president , according to a new poll for The Baltimore Sun , the University of Baltimore and WYPR-FM .
“ It ’ s definitely a three-way race , ” said Steve Raabe , president of OpinionWorks , the Annapolis-based firm that conducted the poll .
“ Sheila Dixon and Mary Miller are literally tied .
Brandon Scott is right behind , but he ’ s a leading second choice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The poll of 400 likely Baltimore Democratic primary voters was conducted May 11-18 .
It has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points .
If you follow Baltimore politics even slightly , the name of Sheila Dixon is probably ringing a bell .
That ’ s because she was the other mayor of the city who was driven from office following a conviction on corruption charges .
She was convicted of embezzlement roughly a decade ago .
While the amount of money she stole paled in comparison to the cash that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made up for it with the fact that she was stealing gift cards intended for the poor .
And yet somehow , she ’ s tied for the lead to be elected back into office .
The demographic breakdown of the poll is surprising as well .
Dixon is the leader among Black voters , who make up a majority of Baltimore ’ s population , with 26 % support while only 3 % of white voters back her .
By comparison , Miller is supported by 31 % of white voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Baltimore ’ s Black residents are the ones who bear the brunt of the city ’ s many ills , including an epidemic of gang violence and an economy that was already swirling near the drain even before the pandemic hit .
These issues have plagued the city for years .
And yet somehow they ’ re giving a serious look at putting a proven crook back into office ?
If I could just address the voters of Baltimore for a moment here , I would repeat something that we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city has been a disaster area for quite a while now .
It ’ s one of the only major cities in the country that ’ s experiencing a net loss of population rather than growing , as so many residents who have the ability to flee for their lives are doing so .
You ’ re bleeding off your population , both literally and figuratively .
Things are never going to change if you keep electing the same corrupt cast of characters that you ’ ve been putting into office for decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelect someone who has already proven themselves untrustworthy and dishonest , I don ’ t see how anyone can continue to have any sympathy for you .
Baltimore was once a great and prosperous city with thriving industry and a good standard of living .
It could be that way again someday .
But not if you don ’ t start forcing that sort of change to happen when you go to the polls .
You don ’ t want to elect Republicans .
I get it .
But you could at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and give them a chance .

Every time the City of Baltimore starts getting my hopes up that life will slowly start to improve there and corruption and crime are beginning to wane they somehow find a way to discourage me yet again. In this case, it’s the current state of the race to elect a new mayor. The current mayor, Jack Young, assumed office after his predecessor, Catherine Pugh, departed to embark on her new career as a prisoner after confessing to corruption and tax evasion charges. Young initially announced that he was only planning to be the interim mayor until he finished Pugh’s term this year, though he later said he would consider another term and still shows up in the polling.
Speaking of polling, that’s where the depressing news comes into play. The latest survey highlighted at the Baltimore Sun shows that the race is coming down to a three-way tie at the moment. It’s between former Obama Treasury official Mary Miller, City Council President Brandon Scott and… wait for it… former Mayor Sheila Dixon.
The contest to be the next mayor of Baltimore has come down to a three-way Democratic primary race between an experienced but controversial former mayor, a millionaire business executive and a youthful City Council president, according to a new poll for The Baltimore Sun, the University of Baltimore and WYPR-FM. “It’s definitely a three-way race,” said Steve Raabe, president of OpinionWorks, the Annapolis-based firm that conducted the poll. “Sheila Dixon and Mary Miller are literally tied. Brandon Scott is right behind, but he’s a leading second choice. The three of them are really competitive.” The poll of 400 likely Baltimore Democratic primary voters was conducted May 11-18. It has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
If you follow Baltimore politics even slightly, the name of Sheila Dixon is probably ringing a bell. That’s because she was the other mayor of the city who was driven from office following a conviction on corruption charges. She was convicted of embezzlement roughly a decade ago. While the amount of money she stole paled in comparison to the cash that Catherine Pugh was hauling in, she made up for it with the fact that she was stealing gift cards intended for the poor.
And yet somehow, she’s tied for the lead to be elected back into office. The demographic breakdown of the poll is surprising as well. Dixon is the leader among Black voters, who make up a majority of Baltimore’s population, with 26% support while only 3% of white voters back her. By comparison, Miller is supported by 31% of white voters, but just 11% of Black voters.
Baltimore’s Black residents are the ones who bear the brunt of the city’s many ills, including an epidemic of gang violence and an economy that was already swirling near the drain even before the pandemic hit. These issues have plagued the city for years. And yet somehow they’re giving a serious look at putting a proven crook back into office?
If I could just address the voters of Baltimore for a moment here, I would repeat something that we’ve brought up on multiple occasions. Your city has been a disaster area for quite a while now. It’s one of the only major cities in the country that’s experiencing a net loss of population rather than growing, as so many residents who have the ability to flee for their lives are doing so. You’re bleeding off your population, both literally and figuratively. Things are never going to change if you keep electing the same corrupt cast of characters that you’ve been putting into office for decades.
If you actually turn around and reelect someone who has already proven themselves untrustworthy and dishonest, I don’t see how anyone can continue to have any sympathy for you. Baltimore was once a great and prosperous city with thriving industry and a good standard of living. It could be that way again someday. But not if you don’t start forcing that sort of change to happen when you go to the polls. You don’t want to elect Republicans. I get it. But you could at least try to dig up some honest Democrats and give them a chance.


hotair--2020-05-20--Too ugh to check: Did Planned Parenthood get $80M from COVID-19 small-business relief funds?

And you thought Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House had some explaining to do .
“ When you hear the phrase ‘ small business ’ , ” Tucker Carlson asked in last night ’ s Fox News Channel broadcast , “ what comes to mind ?
” Almost certainly not the nation ’ s biggest abortion mill , Planned Parenthood , and yet 37 of its affiliates soaked up $ 80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program .
Worse yet , Carlson argues , nearly none of them closed for business in the COVID-19 pandemic , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash from a program designed to keep pandemic-closure-impacted small businesses from going under .
The federal government now wants to impose an early termination to their cash impregnation .
That ’ s something Planned Parenthood should support , right ?
Thirty-seven Planned Parenthood affiliates applied for and received a total of $ 80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , Fox News ’ “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” has learned — and now the federal government wants the money back , saying the affiliates should have known they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus payouts .
The Small Business Administration ( SBA ) is reaching out to each involved Planned Parenthood affiliate explaining that affiliates of larger organizations with more than 500 employees aren ’ t eligible for PPP distributions , Fox News is told .
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America ( PFFA ) alone has had more than 600 employees .
A Planned Parenthood affiliate in Metropolitan Washington ( PPMW ) , for example , will receive a letter stating that although self-certified that it was eligible for a $ 1,328,000 PPP loan in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules , it will need to return the money .
PPMW ’ s request for money from the Trump administration came just months after the affiliate ’ s president and CEO , Laura Meyers , promised to turn down federal funds .
The Washington Examiner has more on this story , including calls from lawmakers demanding the return of the cash : “ There is no ambiguity in the legislation that passed or public record around its passage that organizations such as Planned Parenthood , whose parent organization has close to half a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program , ” Rubio said in a statement .
“ Those funds must be returned immediately , ” he continued .
“ Furthermore , the SBA should open an investigation into how these loans were made in clear violation of the applicable affiliation rules and if Planned Parenthood , the banks , or staff at the SBA knowingly violated the law , all appropriate legal options should be pursued.
” Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said on Twitter following the report that the “ money needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications , they need to be prosecuted.
” Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford , also a Republican , said that “ every dollar Planned Parenthood took from PPP was a dollar that did not get to legitimate small businesses.
” On one level , Congress created this problem themselves in their rush to get PPP approved .
Lobbyists pushed hard to allow franchises to qualify as small businesses even when the overall corporations were undoubtedly large .
That ’ s how Shake Shack , Ruth ’ s Chris , and hotel locations with names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ritz Carlton got their hands on PPP cash too : But after intensive lobbying by the restaurant and hotel industries during the weeks leading to the passage of the $ 2 trillion Cares Act stimulus package , Congress allowed separate subsidiaries and locations to apply as businesses , even if they were part of a national or international chain .
More than 80 publicly traded companies in an array of industries — including owners of large hotel chains , restaurant chains , energy firms and manufacturers — received PPP money , SEC records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth hundreds of millions of dollars based on their share values , and many of them pay executives seven-figure compensation packages .
Others have boosted their share prices in recent years through share buybacks and dividend payments .
Rubio insists that Planned Parenthood didn ’ t qualify as a franchise recipient , either ( starts at 6:15 ) : “ They just don ’ t qualify for it .
There ’ s something called affiliation rules … In this particular case , in order to be a Planned Parenthood affiliate , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the one that ’ s located here in Washington , D.C. , a parent board that is sitting on — according to their own numbers , in 2018 — close to half a billion dollars in net assets …They just don ’ t qualify under the affiliate rules .
It ’ s as simple as that .
Leave aside all the other issues , they do not qualify .
So they need to return the money and if they did this knowingly they need to be held accountable .
And whoever helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held accountable .
That includes , potentially , people on staff at the SBA , the banks , and anybody else.
” Even if Planned Parenthood qualified under franchise rules , there is still another major problem .
As Carlson points out , most of the rest of these businesses had to close , either fully or partially , in conjunction with the “ flatten the curve ” effort .
Not only did Planned Parenthood locations stay open , they fought in court to be deemed “ essential businesses ” in the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though abortion procedures require the PPE the order to stop elective surgeries intended on conserving those resources .
For the most part those affiliates won in court , too .
So for almost all of these locations , employee paychecks were never in danger at all .
And yet Planned Parenthood sucked cash out of a program that aimed to protect the salaries of Americans whose income really was at risk .
That ’ s unconscionable , and borderline fraudulent .
That money should be produced immediately , and prosecution should follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is yet another object lesson in what happens when Congress rushes legislation through without adequate debate and oversight .
Planned Parenthood may be a bloodsucking vulture , but Congress left the carcass out on the ground on which they feasted .

And you thought Ruth’s Chris Steak House had some explaining to do. “When you hear the phrase ‘small business’,” Tucker Carlson asked in last night’s Fox News Channel broadcast, “what comes to mind?” Almost certainly not the nation’s biggest abortion mill, Planned Parenthood, and yet 37 of its affiliates soaked up $80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program. Worse yet, Carlson argues, nearly none of them closed for business in the COVID-19 pandemic, but that didn’t keep them from getting cash from a program designed to keep pandemic-closure-impacted small businesses from going under.
The federal government now wants to impose an early termination to their cash impregnation. That’s something Planned Parenthood should support, right?
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Thirty-seven Planned Parenthood affiliates applied for and received a total of $80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has learned — and now the federal government wants the money back, saying the affiliates should have known they weren’t eligible for the coronavirus stimulus payouts. The Small Business Administration (SBA) is reaching out to each involved Planned Parenthood affiliate explaining that affiliates of larger organizations with more than 500 employees aren’t eligible for PPP distributions, Fox News is told. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PFFA) alone has had more than 600 employees. A Planned Parenthood affiliate in Metropolitan Washington (PPMW), for example, will receive a letter stating that although self-certified that it was eligible for a $1,328,000 PPP loan in accordance with the SBA’s affiliation rules, it will need to return the money. PPMW’s request for money from the Trump administration came just months after the affiliate’s president and CEO, Laura Meyers, promised to turn down federal funds.
The Washington Examiner has more on this story, including calls from lawmakers demanding the return of the cash:
“There is no ambiguity in the legislation that passed or public record around its passage that organizations such as Planned Parenthood, whose parent organization has close to half a billion dollars in assets, is not eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program,” Rubio said in a statement. “Those funds must be returned immediately,” he continued. “Furthermore, the SBA should open an investigation into how these loans were made in clear violation of the applicable affiliation rules and if Planned Parenthood, the banks, or staff at the SBA knowingly violated the law, all appropriate legal options should be pursued.” Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said on Twitter following the report that the “money needs to be recovered and if anybody knowingly falsified applications, they need to be prosecuted.” Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, also a Republican, said that “every dollar Planned Parenthood took from PPP was a dollar that did not get to legitimate small businesses.”
On one level, Congress created this problem themselves in their rush to get PPP approved. Lobbyists pushed hard to allow franchises to qualify as small businesses even when the overall corporations were undoubtedly large. That’s how Shake Shack, Ruth’s Chris, and hotel locations with names like Marriott, Hilton, and even Ritz Carlton got their hands on PPP cash too:
But after intensive lobbying by the restaurant and hotel industries during the weeks leading to the passage of the $2 trillion Cares Act stimulus package, Congress allowed separate subsidiaries and locations to apply as businesses, even if they were part of a national or international chain. More than 80 publicly traded companies in an array of industries — including owners of large hotel chains, restaurant chains, energy firms and manufacturers — received PPP money, SEC records show. Some of the companies are worth hundreds of millions of dollars based on their share values, and many of them pay executives seven-figure compensation packages. Others have boosted their share prices in recent years through share buybacks and dividend payments.
Rubio insists that Planned Parenthood didn’t qualify as a franchise recipient, either (starts at 6:15):
“They just don’t qualify for it. There’s something called affiliation rules … In this particular case, in order to be a Planned Parenthood affiliate, you have to get approval of the parent board, the one that’s located here in Washington, D.C., a parent board that is sitting on — according to their own numbers, in 2018 — close to half a billion dollars in net assets …They just don’t qualify under the affiliate rules. It’s as simple as that. Leave aside all the other issues, they do not qualify. So they need to return the money and if they did this knowingly they need to be held accountable. And whoever helped them do this knowingly needs to be held accountable. That includes, potentially, people on staff at the SBA, the banks, and anybody else.”
Even if Planned Parenthood qualified under franchise rules, there is still another major problem. As Carlson points out, most of the rest of these businesses had to close, either fully or partially, in conjunction with the “flatten the curve” effort. Not only did Planned Parenthood locations stay open, they fought in court to be deemed “essential businesses” in the COVID-19 pandemic to keep their doors open, even though abortion procedures require the PPE the order to stop elective surgeries intended on conserving those resources. For the most part those affiliates won in court, too.
So for almost all of these locations, employee paychecks were never in danger at all. And yet Planned Parenthood sucked cash out of a program that aimed to protect the salaries of Americans whose income really was at risk. That’s unconscionable, and borderline fraudulent. That money should be produced immediately, and prosecution should follow if it is not. However, this is yet another object lesson in what happens when Congress rushes legislation through without adequate debate and oversight. Planned Parenthood may be a bloodsucking vulture, but Congress left the carcass out on the ground on which they feasted.


hotair--2020-05-20--Analysis: 9% of Trump 2016 voters plan to vote for Biden, twice the number of Clinton 2016 voters wh

Analysis: 9% of Trump 2016 voters plan to vote for Biden, twice the number of Clinton 2016 voters who plan to vote for Trump

A reminder that the stark partisan lines that define politics online don ’ t translate as easily to the real world .
The authors of this analysis are right when they remind us that voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 were hugely important to the outcome four years ago .
It ’ s hard to believe people like that even exist given the animosity between 44 and 45 ; there ’ s an “ Obamagate ” scandal being pushed by Trump at this very moment , for cripes sake .
But Obama-Trump voters are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot in the last election , per this Nate Cohn study from 2017 .
In particular , a meaningful number of white working-class voters who preferred Obama to Romney in 2012 ended up preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton four years later .
Why ?
According to Cohn , “ racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data.
” But that can ’ t explain everything , of course ; obviously racial resentment didn ’ t prevent these people from casting their ballot to reelect the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they preferred culturally conservative policies to culturally liberal ones but not as much as they preferred redistributionist economic policies to traditional libertarian ones .
If Mitt Romney had tried harder to appeal to the working class , if he hadn ’ t come off like a CEO out of central casting ( recall Mike Huckabee ’ s famous line to voters that Romney looks like the guy who fired you ) , maybe these voters would have broken for Republicans in 2012 .
As it is , it took a nationalist like Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pry them away from the Democrats .
Having a quintessentially establishment Wall Street Dem like Hillary Clinton running against him only helped heighten the contrast .
So much for the Obama-Trump voters .
Who are the Trump-Biden voters ?
An interesting lot , per this new study .
They ’ re spread out across races and education groups — a third nonwhite , a third white and without a college degree , a third white who graduated from college .
They skew male ( 60 percent ) and older ( 45 or older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers Biden has been posting among older voters in state polls over the past month or so .
Forty percent or so of the Trump-Biden cohort are Democrats — but 30 percent or so are Republicans or independents .
What do they believe , though ?
What draws someone who voted for Trump in 2016 to flip to Biden now ?
Per the authors , it turns out they like … redistributionist economic policies and conservative cultural policies ( with one notable exception ) , with economics apparently taking priority .
Which sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump-Biden voters support increasing taxes on those earning over $ 600,000 per year , and 60 percent of these voters back tax cuts for those earning $ 100,000 or less annually .
Nearly 6 in 10 Trump-Biden voters support steps to ensure students can graduate from college debt-free or to enact a jobs guarantee , respectively .
More than 7 in 10 voters back expansive steps to combat global warming through new clean energy investments .
More than 70 percent support paid family leave , and about two-thirds support a $ 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , they support a public option for government health insurance , at 70 percent ; less than half support a Medicare-for-all proposal… Fully 78 percent believe that government should promote traditional family values in society ; nearly half support allowing vouchers for private or religious schools ; and more than 60 percent think the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed at public schools and courthouses .
By wide margins , Trump-Biden voters oppose reparations for slavery and believe that there are only two genders , male and female .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 62 percent oppose banning all guns , while 85 percent support background checks for all gun purchases .
The notable exception on cultural conservatism is the group ’ s position on immigration .
A plurality oppose the border wall and a huge majority support legalizing DREAMers .
Why would Trump 2016 voters with this set of priorities find more to like in Biden than in a second term for Trump ?
One obvious possibility is that they ’ ve come to regard Trump ’ s populism as a bit of a paper tiger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war with China , but his economic agenda has been largely traditional GOP priorities otherwise .
It ’ s impossible to imagine him convincing McConnell and congressional Republicans to support hiking taxes on the rich or free college or a public option for ObamaCare or even a higher minimum wage .
He ’ s even chattered half-heartedly about reforming entitlements , although no one believes he or the party will have the nerve to actually do it .
Relatedly , given the horrific economic picture Americans are looking at over the next several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Republican cultural conservatism may feel it ’ s prudent to prioritize the former over the latter for the time being .
There ’ s a report out today in WaPo , in fact , that Trump told Senate Republicans that he opposes extending souped-up unemployment benefits past July for workers who ’ ve been laid off due to the pandemic .
There are defensible policy reasons for that : The national debt is exploding and lavish benefits are potentially a disincentive to return to work , which is not what businesses need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Democrats are going to savage him for trying to turn off the tap when tens of millions of people are out of work and depending on benefits as a lifeline .
Where do you suppose the redistributionist-minded Trump-Biden voters will come down in that dispute ?
We may be overthinking this by comparing policy checklists , though .
Most voters don ’ t vote that way ; they vote , I think , based on perceptions of which candidate is more sympathetic to their problems .
In 2012 they may have understandably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor the working class into his decisions as president more so than Mitt “ Makers and Takers ” Romney was .
Four years later it was easy to conclude that the Republican whose trade and immigration policies focused on lost lower-wage jobs would pay more heed to them than one of the most corporate , Hollywood-friendly Democrats in America would .
This year it ’ s not so clear cut , though .
Biden doesn ’ t have a ton of political gifts but empathy is one .
And he ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume he ’ ll do a little more policy-wise for blue-collar workers than a Republican agenda over which Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment still have a ton of influence .
Plus , don ’ t forget that not all Trump voters in 2016 were enthusiastic Trump voters .
There are lots of those out there and they make lots of noise online , but Trump destroyed Hillary among the “ double hater ” segment of the electorate , i.e .
the group that viewed both nominees unfavorably .
This year Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is to say , a lot of Trump 2016 voters don ’ t need much convincing to switch sides this time .
Add it all up , say the authors of today ’ s report , and nine percent of Trump 2016 voters are poised to flip , around twice as many Clinton 2016 who are prepared to flip the other way to Trump .
That could be decisive .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s Gretchen Whitmer admitting that she ’ s chatted with Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this clip circulated on political Twitter last night some righties scoffed loudly that Biden would consider her as his running mate , but I don ’ t understand why .
Granted , Republicans hate her as the de facto face of the lockdown era , but so what ?
Seventy-two percent of Michiganders overall approve of her handling of the coronavirus crisis ; she governs a must-win state for Biden too , so adding her to the ticket might lock it down .
And of course she ’ s a woman , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender of the VP nominee .
I don ’ t think he ’ ll pick her since she hasn ’ t had much experience as governor yet and isn ’ t African-American , but she ’ s far from a crazy choice .

A reminder that the stark partisan lines that define politics online don’t translate as easily to the real world.
The authors of this analysis are right when they remind us that voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 were hugely important to the outcome four years ago. It’s hard to believe people like that even exist given the animosity between 44 and 45; there’s an “Obamagate” scandal being pushed by Trump at this very moment, for cripes sake. But Obama-Trump voters are a real thing and they really did matter a lot in the last election, per this Nate Cohn study from 2017. In particular, a meaningful number of white working-class voters who preferred Obama to Romney in 2012 ended up preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton four years later. Why?
According to Cohn, “racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data.” But that can’t explain everything, of course; obviously racial resentment didn’t prevent these people from casting their ballot to reelect the first black president. It may be that they preferred culturally conservative policies to culturally liberal ones but not as much as they preferred redistributionist economic policies to traditional libertarian ones. If Mitt Romney had tried harder to appeal to the working class, if he hadn’t come off like a CEO out of central casting (recall Mike Huckabee’s famous line to voters that Romney looks like the guy who fired you), maybe these voters would have broken for Republicans in 2012. As it is, it took a nationalist like Trump to marry protectionism to social conservatism to pry them away from the Democrats. Having a quintessentially establishment Wall Street Dem like Hillary Clinton running against him only helped heighten the contrast.
So much for the Obama-Trump voters. Who are the Trump-Biden voters? An interesting lot, per this new study. They’re spread out across races and education groups — a third nonwhite, a third white and without a college degree, a third white who graduated from college. They skew male (60 percent) and older (45 or older), which jibes with the worrisome numbers Biden has been posting among older voters in state polls over the past month or so. Forty percent or so of the Trump-Biden cohort are Democrats — but 30 percent or so are Republicans or independents.
What do they believe, though? What draws someone who voted for Trump in 2016 to flip to Biden now? Per the authors, it turns out they like … redistributionist economic policies and conservative cultural policies (with one notable exception), with economics apparently taking priority. Which sounds familiar.
For example, 70 percent of Trump-Biden voters support increasing taxes on those earning over $600,000 per year, and 60 percent of these voters back tax cuts for those earning $100,000 or less annually. Nearly 6 in 10 Trump-Biden voters support steps to ensure students can graduate from college debt-free or to enact a jobs guarantee, respectively. More than 7 in 10 voters back expansive steps to combat global warming through new clean energy investments. More than 70 percent support paid family leave, and about two-thirds support a $15 per hour minimum wage. On health care, they support a public option for government health insurance, at 70 percent; less than half support a Medicare-for-all proposal… Fully 78 percent believe that government should promote traditional family values in society; nearly half support allowing vouchers for private or religious schools; and more than 60 percent think the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed at public schools and courthouses. By wide margins, Trump-Biden voters oppose reparations for slavery and believe that there are only two genders, male and female. On guns, they express moderate views: 62 percent oppose banning all guns, while 85 percent support background checks for all gun purchases.
The notable exception on cultural conservatism is the group’s position on immigration. A plurality oppose the border wall and a huge majority support legalizing DREAMers.
Why would Trump 2016 voters with this set of priorities find more to like in Biden than in a second term for Trump? One obvious possibility is that they’ve come to regard Trump’s populism as a bit of a paper tiger. Sure, he started a trade war with China, but his economic agenda has been largely traditional GOP priorities otherwise. It’s impossible to imagine him convincing McConnell and congressional Republicans to support hiking taxes on the rich or free college or a public option for ObamaCare or even a higher minimum wage. He’s even chattered half-heartedly about reforming entitlements, although no one believes he or the party will have the nerve to actually do it.
Relatedly, given the horrific economic picture Americans are looking at over the next several years, voters who prefer Democratic redistributionism and Republican cultural conservatism may feel it’s prudent to prioritize the former over the latter for the time being. There’s a report out today in WaPo, in fact, that Trump told Senate Republicans that he opposes extending souped-up unemployment benefits past July for workers who’ve been laid off due to the pandemic. There are defensible policy reasons for that: The national debt is exploding and lavish benefits are potentially a disincentive to return to work, which is not what businesses need as they try to resume operations.
But Democrats are going to savage him for trying to turn off the tap when tens of millions of people are out of work and depending on benefits as a lifeline. Where do you suppose the redistributionist-minded Trump-Biden voters will come down in that dispute?
We may be overthinking this by comparing policy checklists, though. Most voters don’t vote that way; they vote, I think, based on perceptions of which candidate is more sympathetic to their problems. In 2012 they may have understandably concluded that Barack Obama was likely to factor the working class into his decisions as president more so than Mitt “Makers and Takers” Romney was. Four years later it was easy to conclude that the Republican whose trade and immigration policies focused on lost lower-wage jobs would pay more heed to them than one of the most corporate, Hollywood-friendly Democrats in America would.
This year it’s not so clear cut, though. Biden doesn’t have a ton of political gifts but empathy is one. And he’s the ultimate generic Democrat so undecided voters may assume he’ll do a little more policy-wise for blue-collar workers than a Republican agenda over which Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment still have a ton of influence. Plus, don’t forget that not all Trump voters in 2016 were enthusiastic Trump voters. There are lots of those out there and they make lots of noise online, but Trump destroyed Hillary among the “double hater” segment of the electorate, i.e. the group that viewed both nominees unfavorably. This year Biden’s destroying Trump in that demographic. That is to say, a lot of Trump 2016 voters don’t need much convincing to switch sides this time.
Add it all up, say the authors of today’s report, and nine percent of Trump 2016 voters are poised to flip, around twice as many Clinton 2016 who are prepared to flip the other way to Trump. That could be decisive.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s Gretchen Whitmer admitting that she’s chatted with Biden’s team about the VP slot. When this clip circulated on political Twitter last night some righties scoffed loudly that Biden would consider her as his running mate, but I don’t understand why. Granted, Republicans hate her as the de facto face of the lockdown era, but so what? Seventy-two percent of Michiganders overall approve of her handling of the coronavirus crisis; she governs a must-win state for Biden too, so adding her to the ticket might lock it down. And of course she’s a woman, which would fulfill his campaign pledge about the gender of the VP nominee. I don’t think he’ll pick her since she hasn’t had much experience as governor yet and isn’t African-American, but she’s far from a crazy choice.


hotair--2020-05-20--Glenn Greenwald's take on 'resistance journalism'

Earlier this week , Ben Smith published a piece at the NY Times titled “ Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True ?
” The piece argues that some of Farrow ’ s reporting seems to fall into a category Smith labels “ resistance journalism.
” Mr. Farrow , 32 , is not a fabulist .
His reporting can be misleading but he does not make things up .
His work , though , reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has thrived in the age of Donald Trump : That if reporters swim ably along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices , the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives .
If you ’ re interested in how that applies to Farrow , read Smith ’ s piece .
But over at the Intercept , Glenn Greenwald picked up the “ resistance journalism ” concept and ran with it .
He argued that the left ’ s fixation on Russian collusion produced a host of conspiracy theories for which the reporters were never held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism ” sickness that caused U.S. politics to be drowned for three years in little other than salacious and fact-free conspiracy theories about Trump and his family members and closest associates : Putin had infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy ; Trump officials conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election ; Russia was attacking the U.S. by hacking its electricity grid , recruiting journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers , and plotting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mainstream media debacles — all in service of promoting the same set of conspiracy theories against Trump — are literally too numerous to count , requiring one to select the worst offenses as illustrative .
At this point he includes this clip of Rachel Maddow suggesting Russia might turn off the heat in U.S. cities as an example : Greenwald points to Erik Wemple of the Washington Post as one of the very few reporters who has even attempted to look back and hold any of these resistance journalism figures to account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable — recounting how one of the most reckless Russigate conspiracy maximialists , Natasha Bertrand , became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial trash ( she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic ) ; MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it ; and Mother Jones ’ David Corn played a crucial , decisively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Steele dossier all with zero effect on his journalistic status , other than to enrich him through a predictably bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further… By far the easiest path to career success over the last three years — booming ratings , lucrative book sales , exploding social media followings , career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives — was to feed establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about Drumpf and his White House .
Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was simply was not a metric used to assess its worth .
I wrote about the series of articles Wemple wrote attempting to hold journalists accountable earlier this year .
One of the most revealing things was the way in which most of the reporters he contacted about their prior comments promoting the Steele dossier simply wouldn ’ t speak to him about it : • MSNBC ’ s Rachel “ Maddow declined to comment on the record.
” • CNN ’ s Alisyn Camerota “ Declined to comment on the record.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Declined to comment on the record.
” • Former State Department official Jonathan Winer ( appearing on CNN ) “ did not return a request for comment.
” • Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler ( appearing on MSNBC ) offered “ No response to a request for comment.
” • Journalist Jacob Weisberg ( appearing on MSNBC ) …Wemple writes “ Attempts to secure a comment from Weisberg have been unsuccessful.
” • Journalist Natasha Bertrand ( appearing on MSNBC ) “ Bertrand did not respond to requests for comment.
” There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s piece , including a section on blogger Marcy Wheeler .
But he concludes by pointing out that rewarding journalists for joining the herd in their groupthink is a sure way to ruin journalism : We had nearly three years in which all of the major outlets seemed pretty certain about where the story was going , we were just waiting for the next “ Boom !
” or blockbuster story that would finally prove it .
The result was a disaster for the credibility of everyone who promoted this fraud .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working .
They ’ ve moved on to the next resistance outrage often without so much as a backward glance at their own failure .

Earlier this week, Ben Smith published a piece at the NY Times titled “Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?” The piece argues that some of Farrow’s reporting seems to fall into a category Smith labels “resistance journalism.”
Mr. Farrow, 32, is not a fabulist. His reporting can be misleading but he does not make things up. His work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives.
If you’re interested in how that applies to Farrow, read Smith’s piece. But over at the Intercept, Glenn Greenwald picked up the “resistance journalism” concept and ran with it. He argued that the left’s fixation on Russian collusion produced a host of conspiracy theories for which the reporters were never held accountable.
It is this “resistance journalism” sickness that caused U.S. politics to be drowned for three years in little other than salacious and fact-free conspiracy theories about Trump and his family members and closest associates: Putin had infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by hacking its electricity grid, recruiting journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers, and plotting to cut off heat to Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles — all in service of promoting the same set of conspiracy theories against Trump — are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to select the worst offenses as illustrative.
At this point he includes this clip of Rachel Maddow suggesting Russia might turn off the heat in U.S. cities as an example:
Glenn Beck 2009 + Maddow 2019 is the greatest crossover event in history pic.twitter.com/D1NElGBq3U — Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 31, 2019
Greenwald points to Erik Wemple of the Washington Post as one of the very few reporters who has even attempted to look back and hold any of these resistance journalism figures to account:
The Washington Post’s media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable — recounting how one of the most reckless Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand, became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and Mother Jones’ David Corn played a crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further…
By far the easiest path to career success over the last three years — booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings, career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives — was to feed establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its worth.
I wrote about the series of articles Wemple wrote attempting to hold journalists accountable earlier this year. One of the most revealing things was the way in which most of the reporters he contacted about their prior comments promoting the Steele dossier simply wouldn’t speak to him about it:
MSNBC’s Rachel “Maddow declined to comment on the record.”
CNN’s Alisyn Camerota “Declined to comment on the record.”
CNN’s John Berman “Declined to comment on the record.”
Former State Department official Jonathan Winer (appearing on CNN) “did not return a request for comment.”
Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler (appearing on MSNBC) offered “No response to a request for comment.”
CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd…Wemple lists this as “Awaiting a reply.”
Journalist Jacob Weisberg (appearing on MSNBC)…Wemple writes “Attempts to secure a comment from Weisberg have been unsuccessful.”
Journalist Natasha Bertrand (appearing on MSNBC) “Bertrand did not respond to requests for comment.”
There’s a lot more in Greenwald’s piece, including a section on blogger Marcy Wheeler. But he concludes by pointing out that rewarding journalists for joining the herd in their groupthink is a sure way to ruin journalism:
All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is, which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.
We had nearly three years in which all of the major outlets seemed pretty certain about where the story was going, we were just waiting for the next “Boom!” or blockbuster story that would finally prove it. The result was a disaster for the credibility of everyone who promoted this fraud. And yet, most of them are still working. They’ve moved on to the next resistance outrage often without so much as a backward glance at their own failure.


hotair--2020-05-20--Pompeo on IG firing: You're darned right I ordered the Code Red on Linick -- and bribe-taking Menend

Pompeo on IG firing: You're darned right I ordered the Code Red on Linick -- and bribe-taking Menendez should stop leaking

Donald Trump didn ’ t exactly leave Mike Pompeo much room for cover on the firing of the State Department ’ s inspector general , but Pompeo apparently doesn ’ t want cover anyway .
At this morning ’ s presser , Pompeo declared that Steve Linick should have been fired “ some time ago , ” and confirmed that he initiated Trump ’ s action .
Pompeo also denied that this was in retaliation for any current investigation because he had no knowledge of what Linick was doing .
“ I don ’ t leak to y ’ all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fingered Sen. Bob Menendez as a leaker : Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended his push to have his department ’ s inspector general fired , saying he “ should have done it some time ago , ” but refused to explain his reasoning for recommending President Donald Trump remove Steve Linick from his job .
“ The President has the unilateral right to choose who he wants to be his inspector general at every agency in the federal government , ” Pompeo said in remarks to reporters Wednesday at the State Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and those persons just like all of us serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States .
In this case , I recommended to the President that Steve Linick be terminated .
I frankly should have done it some time ago.
” Pompeo told reporters that he couldn ’ t have retaliated against Linick , but that he also can ’ t reveal why Pompeo asked for his termination .
“ Unlike others , ” Pompeo said , “ I don ’ t talk about personnel matters .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all.
” However , Pompeo noted that leaks coming from elsewhere within State offered increasingly “ crazy ” stories about his own behavior , all of which Pompeo denied : [ “ ] I ’ ll just say this , I can ’ t talk , I can ’ t give you specificity , we ’ ll share with the appropriate people the rationale , ” he continued .
“ There should be no mistake…there are claims this was for retaliation , for some investigation that the Inspector General ’ s office here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patently false .
I have no sense of what investigations were taking place inside the Inspector General ’ s office .
I couldn ’ t possibly have retaliated for all the things .
I ’ ve seen the various stories , like , someone was walking my dog to sell arms to my dry cleaner .
It ’ s all just crazy .
It ’ s all crazy stuff .
I didn ’ t have access to that information so I couldn ’ t possibly have retaliated .
It would have been impossible.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I was asked a series of questions in writing .
I responded to those questions with respect to a particular investigation .
That was sometime earlier this year as best I can recall .
I responded to those questions .
I don ’ t know the scope , I don ’ t know the nature of that investigation , ” he continued .
Pompeo accused Menendez of stoking a controversy over a routine dismissal of an IG , and pointedly said Menendez has no room to serve as an ethics judge : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think about as you see these stories that have been leaked to you all , to the press .
This is all coming through the office of Senator Menendez .
I don ’ t get my ethics guidance from a man who was criminally prosecuted , case number 15-155 , New Jersey Federal District Court , ” Pompeo said .
“ A man for whom his Senate colleagues , bipartisan , said basically that he was taking bribes .
That ’ s not someone I look to for ethics guidance so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make sure the State Department is served by every employee , including our inspector general and we ’ ll make sure the State Department continues to deliver on behalf of the American people.
” Well , that should make for a merry little war within the Beltway .
Did anyone out Menendez as a source for these stories before now , or did Pompeo have sources of his own ?
Senate Democrats might want some answers to that question while asking for information on Linick ’ s firing .
That , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media kerfuffle indicates .
Remember when Barack Obama fired Gerald Walpin after the AmeriCorps IG took a keen interest in potential corrupt use of funds by Obama ally Kevin Johnson ?
The White House used the exact same justification , “ lack of confidence , ” and tried to spread around rumors that Walpin was going senile .
Walpin shot back that he was no more senile than Obama after his reference to “ 57 states.
” The national media barely covered that firing , but in fairness , conservative media followed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Obama White House .
( An FBI probe into alleged obstruction by Johnson helped that along , though . )
Politico suggests that a donor connection might be in play here too , but that it wasn ’ t the focus of a probe : The now-fired State Department inspector general had recently wrapped up an investigation into another top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , determining that she had likely failed to report allegations of workplace violence , a person familiar with the issue told POLITICO .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the department ’ s Office of Protocol , could have been another factor in what Pompeo and his deputies have described as mounting frustration with the inspector general , Steve Linick , and might have contributed to Pompeo ’ s push to oust him .
The Pompeos worked closely with the Office of Protocol on a series of intimate , hush-hush dinners that featured influential conservatives , administration officials and Wall Street financiers in what some critics have viewed as the improper use of taxpayer dollars .
“ Some critics ” might view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a weird way to frame a report into a workplace-violence investigation .
Too bad the mainstream media wasn ’ t as interested in donor connections to IG firings eleven years ago .
Update : Mark Hemingway followed up on the Johnson case in 2015 and concluded Walpin was correct — and that his firing was political : According to Walpin , the chairman of the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service , Alan Solomont , was a major Democratic fundraiser and was unhappy with his reports pointing out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also said to be close to the Obamas , and shortly afterward the president abruptly fired Walpin from his job .
The firing set off a flurry of inquiries from a bipartisan group of senators concerned that Walpin ’ s firing had been been politically motivated .
There were also allegations that the U.S. attorney in Sacramento , Lawrence Brown , filed an ethics complaint against Walpin to help lift a ban on Johnson receiving federal funds as well as curry favor with the White House .
Brown was seeking a presidential appointment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern District of California .
Now Johnson remains mired in scandal six years later and is being accused of allegations of corruption very similar to what was first alleged by Walpin .
And in the intervening years , the Obama administration has acquired quite the reputation for selectively enforcing laws against compromised allies and for the vigorous prosecution of political enemies on dubious grounds .
Johnson ’ s current troubles certainly suggest that the president was wrong to fire Walpin , and are an unpleasant reminder of the Chicago-style politics that have come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses of political power .

Donald Trump didn’t exactly leave Mike Pompeo much room for cover on the firing of the State Department’s inspector general, but Pompeo apparently doesn’t want cover anyway. At this morning’s presser, Pompeo declared that Steve Linick should have been fired “some time ago,” and confirmed that he initiated Trump’s action. Pompeo also denied that this was in retaliation for any current investigation because he had no knowledge of what Linick was doing.
“I don’t leak to y’all,” Pompeo declared, but instead fingered Sen. Bob Menendez as a leaker:
NEW: Sec. Mike Pompeo says he recommended the State Dept. inspector general be fired “and frankly should have done it some time ago.” Pompeo declined to specify a reason, but asserted that the firing "couldn’t possibly have" been retaliatory. https://t.co/ttCbxjL1zG pic.twitter.com/BgTiirE6pS — ABC News (@ABC) May 20, 2020
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended his push to have his department’s inspector general fired, saying he “should have done it some time ago,” but refused to explain his reasoning for recommending President Donald Trump remove Steve Linick from his job. “The President has the unilateral right to choose who he wants to be his inspector general at every agency in the federal government,” Pompeo said in remarks to reporters Wednesday at the State Department. “They are presidentially confirmed positions, and those persons just like all of us serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. In this case, I recommended to the President that Steve Linick be terminated. I frankly should have done it some time ago.”
Pompeo told reporters that he couldn’t have retaliated against Linick, but that he also can’t reveal why Pompeo asked for his termination. “Unlike others,” Pompeo said, “I don’t talk about personnel matters. I don’t leak to y’all.” However, Pompeo noted that leaks coming from elsewhere within State offered increasingly “crazy” stories about his own behavior, all of which Pompeo denied:
[“]I’ll just say this, I can’t talk, I can’t give you specificity, we’ll share with the appropriate people the rationale,” he continued. “There should be no mistake…there are claims this was for retaliation, for some investigation that the Inspector General’s office here was engaged in. That’s patently false. I have no sense of what investigations were taking place inside the Inspector General’s office. I couldn’t possibly have retaliated for all the things. I’ve seen the various stories, like, someone was walking my dog to sell arms to my dry cleaner. It’s all just crazy. It’s all crazy stuff. I didn’t have access to that information so I couldn’t possibly have retaliated. It would have been impossible.” “There’s one exception. I was asked a series of questions in writing. I responded to those questions with respect to a particular investigation. That was sometime earlier this year as best I can recall. I responded to those questions. I don’t know the scope, I don’t know the nature of that investigation,” he continued.
Pompeo accused Menendez of stoking a controversy over a routine dismissal of an IG, and pointedly said Menendez has no room to serve as an ethics judge:
“Here’s the last thing to think about as you see these stories that have been leaked to you all, to the press. This is all coming through the office of Senator Menendez. I don’t get my ethics guidance from a man who was criminally prosecuted, case number 15-155, New Jersey Federal District Court,” Pompeo said. “A man for whom his Senate colleagues, bipartisan, said basically that he was taking bribes. That’s not someone I look to for ethics guidance so I will continue to do the right thing and make sure the State Department is served by every employee, including our inspector general and we’ll make sure the State Department continues to deliver on behalf of the American people.”
Well, that should make for a merry little war within the Beltway. Did anyone out Menendez as a source for these stories before now, or did Pompeo have sources of his own? Senate Democrats might want some answers to that question while asking for information on Linick’s firing.
That, however, is more routine than the current media kerfuffle indicates. Remember when Barack Obama fired Gerald Walpin after the AmeriCorps IG took a keen interest in potential corrupt use of funds by Obama ally Kevin Johnson? The White House used the exact same justification, “lack of confidence,” and tried to spread around rumors that Walpin was going senile. Walpin shot back that he was no more senile than Obama after his reference to “57 states.” The national media barely covered that firing, but in fairness, conservative media followed it closely as an example of potential corruption in the Obama White House. (An FBI probe into alleged obstruction by Johnson helped that along, though.)
Politico suggests that a donor connection might be in play here too, but that it wasn’t the focus of a probe:
The now-fired State Department inspector general had recently wrapped up an investigation into another top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, determining that she had likely failed to report allegations of workplace violence, a person familiar with the issue told POLITICO. The probe into Cam Henderson, who leads the department’s Office of Protocol, could have been another factor in what Pompeo and his deputies have described as mounting frustration with the inspector general, Steve Linick, and might have contributed to Pompeo’s push to oust him. The Pompeos worked closely with the Office of Protocol on a series of intimate, hush-hush dinners that featured influential conservatives, administration officials and Wall Street financiers in what some critics have viewed as the improper use of taxpayer dollars.
“Some critics” might view it that way, but it’s a weird way to frame a report into a workplace-violence investigation. Too bad the mainstream media wasn’t as interested in donor connections to IG firings eleven years ago.
Update: Mark Hemingway followed up on the Johnson case in 2015 and concluded Walpin was correct — and that his firing was political: