hotair--2020-10-13--Mazie Hirono to Barrett: Have you ever sexually assaulted someone?

Not the first question that would occur to me to ask when interviewing a very Catholic mother of seven , but Hirono ’ s prone to losing her mind during Supreme Court confirmation hearings .
Remember two years ago when she said Brett Kavanaugh might not enjoy the same presumption of innocence on a rape claim as everyone else because he ’ s a judicial conservative ?
Or when she asked American men — writ large — to just shut up for awhile ?
I probably have it wrong .
She doesn ’ t lose her mind during Court confirmations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago and we only notice during confirmation hearings .
Although , having said that , this clip isn ’ t quite as outrageous as the headline might suggest : She ’ s not pulling Kavanaugh 2.0 here on Barrett , she ’ s enforcing a general # MeToo policy which she applies in all confirmation hearings .
She announced it at the start of 2018 : She asks this question of all nominees and felt , I guess , that evenhandedness required her to ask it of Barrett as well even though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cheap shot at Barrett by dinging her for using the anodyne term “ sexual preference ” in an answer this morning : Barrett had to clean it up in an answer during Q & A with Joni Ernst because Hirono didn ’ t give her a chance to respond : I think it ’ s quite likely that Barrett will vote to overturn Roe if given the chance but highly , highly unlikely that even a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS would vote to overturn Obergefell , the case that deemed gay marriage protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reluctant to throw the legal status of thousands of gay unions into sudden doubt .
But Democrats need some sort of rallying point against Barrett and she ’ s given them nothing else during her hearing , so this weak sauce from Hirono will have to suffice .
Here ’ s a surprising poll from The Economist that caught my eye this morning .
Barrett has the lowest net approval rating of any nominee in nearly 30 years .
Other polls on her nomination cut against that .
For instance , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , by a plurality of 46/31 , Americans think Barrett should be confirmed .
That doesn ’ t squarely contradict the possibility that they disapprove of her — they may think Trump is owed deference on his pick , or that SCOTUS needs its vacancy filled ASAP before the election — but it ’ s hard to reconcile the data .
My guess is that much of the “ disapproval ” of Barrett isn ’ t about her at all .
What ’ s striking in the graph above is how approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has grown progressively smaller , with the sole exception of the low approval for Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 .
That trend feels like a reflection of the increasing bitterness of American partisanship over time , with added bitterness during SCOTUS confirmations because of the high constitutional stakes .
Ginsburg , one of the most liberal justices of her generation , was confirmed 96-3 .
Barrett will be lucky to get a pure party-line vote .
That has nothing to do with either nominee and everything to do with how central Supreme Court politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that Barrett is cracked up to be the fifth vote for overturning Roe is probably contributing to dimmer views of her , as is her misfortune in being tapped to replace a liberal icon on the Court and the circumstances of her nomination being rammed through before Americans get a chance to vote .
Combine all of that with intense animosity towards Trump from the left in the final days of a nasty presidential race and there ’ s destined to be spillover in views of Barrett herself .
It won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needless to say .
Update : Ah , perfect .
Guess who used the very offensive term “ sexual preference ” at a roundtable this past May ?
Right — Democratic presidential nominee and two-time VP Joe Biden .

Not the first question that would occur to me to ask when interviewing a very Catholic mother of seven, but Hirono’s prone to losing her mind during Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Remember two years ago when she said Brett Kavanaugh might not enjoy the same presumption of innocence on a rape claim as everyone else because he’s a judicial conservative?
Or when she asked American men — writ large — to just shut up for awhile?
I probably have it wrong. She doesn’t lose her mind during Court confirmations. She lost her mind some time ago and we only notice during confirmation hearings.
Although, having said that, this clip isn’t quite as outrageous as the headline might suggest:
Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB "since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?" pic.twitter.com/6JgLkoIXIF — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
She’s not pulling Kavanaugh 2.0 here on Barrett, she’s enforcing a general #MeToo policy which she applies in all confirmation hearings. She announced it at the start of 2018:
Starting today, I'm asking nominees to our courts, under oath, whether or not they have a history of sexual assault or harassment. Like in other industries, our judges are in positions of power & #TimesUp. pic.twitter.com/Jk0NcTBi3h — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) January 10, 2018
She asks this question of all nominees and felt, I guess, that evenhandedness required her to ask it of Barrett as well even though the exchange looks preposterous.
She also took a cheap shot at Barrett by dinging her for using the anodyne term “sexual preference” in an answer this morning:
Sen. Mazie Hirono scolds ACB for using the term "sexual preference" when answering a question about Obergefell this morning, saying that the term is "offensive and outdated." pic.twitter.com/HcFpRQbD9X — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
Barrett had to clean it up in an answer during Q&A with Joni Ernst because Hirono didn’t give her a chance to respond:
Amy Coney Barrett apologizes after Sen. Hirono calls her out for mistaking "sexual preference" for "sexual orientation." pic.twitter.com/Gp94UvPF6c — The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2020
I think it’s quite likely that Barrett will vote to overturn Roe if given the chance but highly, highly unlikely that even a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS would vote to overturn Obergefell, the case that deemed gay marriage protected by the Constitution. The Court would be reluctant to throw the legal status of thousands of gay unions into sudden doubt. But Democrats need some sort of rallying point against Barrett and she’s given them nothing else during her hearing, so this weak sauce from Hirono will have to suffice.
Here’s a surprising poll from The Economist that caught my eye this morning. Barrett has the lowest net approval rating of any nominee in nearly 30 years.
Other polls on her nomination cut against that. For instance, a Morning Consult survey published last week found that, by a plurality of 46/31, Americans think Barrett should be confirmed. That doesn’t squarely contradict the possibility that they disapprove of her — they may think Trump is owed deference on his pick, or that SCOTUS needs its vacancy filled ASAP before the election — but it’s hard to reconcile the data.
My guess is that much of the “disapproval” of Barrett isn’t about her at all. What’s striking in the graph above is how approval for each nominee dating back to Ginsburg has grown progressively smaller, with the sole exception of the low approval for Sonia Sotomayor in 2009. That trend feels like a reflection of the increasing bitterness of American partisanship over time, with added bitterness during SCOTUS confirmations because of the high constitutional stakes. Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices of her generation, was confirmed 96-3. Barrett will be lucky to get a pure party-line vote. That has nothing to do with either nominee and everything to do with how central Supreme Court politics has become to both parties.
But the fact that Barrett is cracked up to be the fifth vote for overturning Roe is probably contributing to dimmer views of her, as is her misfortune in being tapped to replace a liberal icon on the Court and the circumstances of her nomination being rammed through before Americans get a chance to vote. Combine all of that with intense animosity towards Trump from the left in the final days of a nasty presidential race and there’s destined to be spillover in views of Barrett herself. It won’t stop the confirmation train, needless to say.
Update: Ah, perfect. Guess who used the very offensive term “sexual preference” at a roundtable this past May? Right — Democratic presidential nominee and two-time VP Joe Biden.


hotair--2020-10-13--CNN's King: Let's face it, Barrett would get 70+ votes "in another age ... another Republican presid

CNN's King: Let's face it, Barrett would get 70+ votes "in another age ... another Republican president"

What age would that be , and which Republican president ?
That ’ s not meant as a criticism of the underlying argument from CNN ’ s John King in this clip that the GOP and Senate Republican caucus sent out on social media and e-mail this afternoon .
King ’ s correct in pointing out , to which Dana Bash nodded her assent , that Amy Coney Barrett is so obviously qualified that her confirmation should get wide bipartisan support .
After all , Senate Republicans almost unanimously supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 96-3 vote in 1993 despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hearing .
I ’ m just curious as to how far King thinks we need to go back in order to find that kind of comity on a Republican Supreme Court nominee : King clearly thinks that Trump ’ s an exception , so there ’ s little point in belaboring his previous two picks beyond a quick recap .
Neil Gorsuch won confirmation on a 54-45 vote after having served more than ten years on the Tenth Circuit , a vote which took a follow-up “ nuclear option ” to Harry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplish .
The blocked nomination of Merrick Garland hung over that appointment ( which had nothing to do with Trump ) , so there ’ s some partisan context for that .
Brett Kavanaugh ’ s experience also included more than a decade on the DC Circuit , but he only got confirmed 50-48 in a process marred by partisan character assassination and baseless charges of teenage misconduct .
Like I said , King does note that it would be different under “ another Republican president.
” What about Samuel Alito ?
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit when George W. Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court .
When his confirmation vote took place in 2006 , he only passed 58-42 , with only four Democrats voting for his confirmation .
( John Roberts did fare better in 2005 , getting a 78-22 vote to replace William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after only a couple of years on the DC Circuit . )
The previous Republican president to Bush 43 was Bush 41 , who nominated David Souter ( confirmed 90-9 ) and Clarence Thomas ( confirmed 52-48 after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fun , we can also throw in Ronald Reagan ’ s nomination of Robert Bork , who was clearly qualified but who got blocked in a then-unprecedented partisan filibuster .
There was more to that than ideology ; conservatives sometimes forget that Bork was the ultimate hatchet man in Watergate ’ s Saturday Night Massacre , for which Democrats never forgave him .
In short , the last thirty years shows that Democrats have used this process as a partisan battlefield , even if we excuse Bork ’ s block from this record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( including Barrett , prospectively ) over that time by three different Republican presidents have only gotten confirmed on entirely party-line votes or very nearly so .
None of those five got “ 70 or more votes ” despite being well qualified for the position .
What about Supreme Court confirmations from Democratic presidents in the same period ?
Let ’ s start with Garland and go backwards : • Elena Kagan : confirmed 63-37 ( note : with no judicial experience at all ) King ’ s making a good point about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s putting the blame on the wrong party … literally .
This is a problem that long precedes Donald Trump , but at least Trump and Mitch McConnell understand how to deal with it .

What age would that be, and which Republican president? That’s not meant as a criticism of the underlying argument from CNN’s John King in this clip that the GOP and Senate Republican caucus sent out on social media and e-mail this afternoon. King’s correct in pointing out, to which Dana Bash nodded her assent, that Amy Coney Barrett is so obviously qualified that her confirmation should get wide bipartisan support. After all, Senate Republicans almost unanimously supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 96-3 vote in 1993 despite her explicit support for abortion rights in the hearing.
I’m just curious as to how far King thinks we need to go back in order to find that kind of comity on a Republican Supreme Court nominee:
King clearly thinks that Trump’s an exception, so there’s little point in belaboring his previous two picks beyond a quick recap. Neil Gorsuch won confirmation on a 54-45 vote after having served more than ten years on the Tenth Circuit, a vote which took a follow-up “nuclear option” to Harry Reid’s 2013 rule change to accomplish. The blocked nomination of Merrick Garland hung over that appointment (which had nothing to do with Trump), so there’s some partisan context for that. Brett Kavanaugh’s experience also included more than a decade on the DC Circuit, but he only got confirmed 50-48 in a process marred by partisan character assassination and baseless charges of teenage misconduct.
Like I said, King does note that it would be different under “another Republican president.” What about Samuel Alito? He had served 16 years on the Third Circuit when George W. Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court. When his confirmation vote took place in 2006, he only passed 58-42, with only four Democrats voting for his confirmation. (John Roberts did fare better in 2005, getting a 78-22 vote to replace William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after only a couple of years on the DC Circuit.) The previous Republican president to Bush 43 was Bush 41, who nominated David Souter (confirmed 90-9) and Clarence Thomas (confirmed 52-48 after a bitter confirmation process).
For fun, we can also throw in Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork, who was clearly qualified but who got blocked in a then-unprecedented partisan filibuster. There was more to that than ideology; conservatives sometimes forget that Bork was the ultimate hatchet man in Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre, for which Democrats never forgave him.
In short, the last thirty years shows that Democrats have used this process as a partisan battlefield, even if we excuse Bork’s block from this record. Five of the seven previous nominees (including Barrett, prospectively) over that time by three different Republican presidents have only gotten confirmed on entirely party-line votes or very nearly so. None of those five got “70 or more votes” despite being well qualified for the position.
What about Supreme Court confirmations from Democratic presidents in the same period? Let’s start with Garland and go backwards:
Merrick Garland: blocked before Judiciary Committee hearing
Elena Kagan: confirmed 63-37 (note: with no judicial experience at all)
Sonia Sotomayor: confirmed 68-31
Stephen Breyer: confirmed 87-9
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: confirmed 96-3
King’s making a good point about the partisan nature of these proceedings. He’s putting the blame on the wrong party … literally. This is a problem that long precedes Donald Trump, but at least Trump and Mitch McConnell understand how to deal with it.


hotair--2020-10-13--CNN headline: 'Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights'

We ’ ll get to the CNN headline in a moment but to appreciate how completely out-of-context this is you need to first see how it came about .
Earlier today Senator Lindsey Graham used his time questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett to make a point about how the judicial process works .
Graham was trying point out that all of the hot controversies Democrats are excited about , from abortion rights to the survival of the ACA to gun control can not be decided simply because , once confirmed , Justice Barrett decides to impose her personal views .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples to make his point .
“ The Heller case is a case decided by the Supreme Court which held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms , ” Barrett replied .
“ If a state or local government passed a law in defiance of Heller , what would happen ?
” Graham asked .
“ If it was brought in a lower court , Heller binds , ” Barrett said .
“ Lower courts always have to follow Supreme Court precedent , ” she added .
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heller , what would they do ?
” Graham said .
Barrett explained the Supreme Court would have to agree to take the case after it was appealed all the way up .
“ It would start because there was a law and then there was a lawsuit , then there was an appeal , then the court granted cert .
and then the court decided the case.
” “ Does that process hold true for everything ?
” Graham said .
“ Yes , judges can ’ t just wake up one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like guns , I hate guns , I like abortion , I hate abortion—and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world , ” Barrett said .
She continued , “ You have to wait for cases and controversies , which is the language of the constitution , to wind their way through the process.
” Graham then spent the next several minutes walking through challenges to current abortion law and pointed out that 14 states have passed laws that some see as contrary to the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barrett walked through the process of how those cases could come before the Supreme Court and what the court would do if it chose to take it up .
“ It ’ s not just a vote .
You all do that .
You all have a policy and you cast a vote .
The judicial process is different , ” Barrett explained .
“ So when it comes to your personal views…do you own a gun ?
” Graham asked .
“ Do you think you could fairly decide a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Graham said .
Graham went on to ask the same question with regard to her Catholic faith and beliefs .
Again Barrett said she could put her personal views aside and that she had done so in her current job .
Enter CNN with this update on the confirmation hearing : The CNN update leaves out all of the context I provided above .
We only get the the exchange where Graham asks if Barrett owns a gun plus this analysis : The Supreme Court has gone a decade without acting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an issue that could receive rare attention in the future by the high court should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the bench in the coming weeks .
The court has resisted taking up a significant Second Amendment case since the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller – which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual ’ s right to possess a firearm – and a 2010 follow-up , turning away 10 gun rights cases in the last term alone .
Should the Senate confirm Barrett , who once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she could provide the extra vote Justice Clarence Thomas has been advocating for to take up Second Amendment cases .
It seems CNN really is suggesting that the fact Barrett ’ s family owns a gun means she ’ s a lock on this issue .
Jonah Goldberg pointed out how silly this argument was : Here ’ s the full exchange between Graham and Barrett :

We’ll get to the CNN headline in a moment but to appreciate how completely out-of-context this is you need to first see how it came about.
Earlier today Senator Lindsey Graham used his time questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett to make a point about how the judicial process works. Graham was trying point out that all of the hot controversies Democrats are excited about, from abortion rights to the survival of the ACA to gun control can not be decided simply because, once confirmed, Justice Barrett decides to impose her personal views. He used various real life cases as examples to make his point.
“There’s the Heller case, what’s that about?” Graham asked.
“The Heller case is a case decided by the Supreme Court which held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms,” Barrett replied.
“If a state or local government passed a law in defiance of Heller, what would happen?” Graham asked.
“If it was brought in a lower court, Heller binds,” Barrett said. “Lower courts always have to follow Supreme Court precedent,” she added.
“And if the Supreme Court wanted to revisit Heller, what would they do?” Graham said.
Barrett explained the Supreme Court would have to agree to take the case after it was appealed all the way up. “It would start because there was a law and then there was a lawsuit, then there was an appeal, then the court granted cert. and then the court decided the case.”
“Does that process hold true for everything?” Graham said.
“Yes, judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda—I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion—and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett said. She continued, “You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the constitution, to wind their way through the process.”
Graham then spent the next several minutes walking through challenges to current abortion law and pointed out that 14 states have passed laws that some see as contrary to the Supreme Court’s Casey decision. Once again, Barrett walked through the process of how those cases could come before the Supreme Court and what the court would do if it chose to take it up.
“It’s not just a vote. You all do that. You all have a policy and you cast a vote. The judicial process is different,” Barrett explained.
“So when it comes to your personal views…do you own a gun?” Graham asked.
“We do own a gun,” Barrett replied.
“Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun?” Graham said.
“Yes,” Barrett said.
Graham went on to ask the same question with regard to her Catholic faith and beliefs. Again Barrett said she could put her personal views aside and that she had done so in her current job.
Enter CNN with this update on the confirmation hearing:
Amy Coney Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights https://t.co/OvxljdmxJe pic.twitter.com/czu8cE0nNj — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 13, 2020
The CNN update leaves out all of the context I provided above. We only get the the exchange where Graham asks if Barrett owns a gun plus this analysis:
The Supreme Court has gone a decade without acting on a major case concerning the Second Amendment, an issue that could receive rare attention in the future by the high court should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the bench in the coming weeks. The court has resisted taking up a significant Second Amendment case since the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller – which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm – and a 2010 follow-up, turning away 10 gun rights cases in the last term alone. Should the Senate confirm Barrett, who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, she could provide the extra vote Justice Clarence Thomas has been advocating for to take up Second Amendment cases.
It seems CNN really is suggesting that the fact Barrett’s family owns a gun means she’s a lock on this issue. Jonah Goldberg pointed out how silly this argument was:
Seriously, this is amazingly dumb. Imagine this framing for any other right in the Bill of Rights. https://t.co/IzIeKWFCj3 — Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) October 13, 2020
Barrett once had a house guest who overstayed his welcome. She must recuse from all cases on the Third Amendment! https://t.co/w916HV1P8S — Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) October 13, 2020
Here’s the full exchange between Graham and Barrett:


hotair--2020-10-13--Netflix CEO defends "Cuties" after indictment

Somebody might want to mention the First Rule of Holes to Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos .
His company is already taking enough heat over their decision to stream the foreign , child-erotica film “ Cuties , ” including the recent indictment in Texas that we discussed last week .
But rather than taking their foot off the gas and finding a way to put this unpleasant episode behind him , Sarandos has decided to double down .
While addressing some industry players yesterday , the Netflix executive decided to “ explain ” the controversy to the world , saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s having a difficult time understanding what all the fuss is about .
( Fox Business ) Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos is hitting back at critics who have been loud in their distaste of the controversial film “ Cuties ” that has spurred intense backlash since it debuted in September… Sarandos said during a virtual MIPCOM — the annual global market and conference for entertainment content — on Monday that the movie was “ misunderstood ” in America and took umbrage with language within the indictment that claimed “ Cuties ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex , and has no serious , literary , artistic , political , or scientific value.
” “ It ’ s a little surprising in 2020 America that we ’ re having a discussion about censoring storytelling , ” Sarandos told the Mipcom market , according to Deadline .
I see .
So the film is simply “ misunderstood ” by all of your clueless subscribers .
It ’ s always worthwhile to clear up misunderstandings , but I ’ m not sure he ’ s about to convince anyone that this situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
He ’ s seriously arguing that it was insulting to the director for her work to be described as appealing to a prurient interest in underage girls and completely lacking any artistic merit .
How dare you people say such things .
Sarandos went on to claim to be surprised that we ’ re all spending our time talking about “ censoring storytelling.
” I suppose that ’ s one way to put it , but keep in mind that Deep Throat had a storyline also .
That didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audiences .
Further , that early classic of pornography at least had the good sense to use actors that were all legal adults .
What the Netflix co-CEO seems to fail to realize is that the uproar over “ Cuties ” isn ’ t a question of censorship .
It ’ s not a question of pornography .
It ’ s a question of something that walks dangerously close to the edge of child pornography , which is an entirely different animal .
Child exploitation or child endangerment would be closer to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of this debacle , I understand the point that the film ’ s director was trying to make in defending the movie .
If we take her at her word , she was trying to tell a story about young children with inadequate guidance who fall under the spell of YouTube “ influencers ” and get in trouble when they seek to emulate them .
That ’ s a cautionary tale worth exploring .
But it could have been done without the child erotica scenes featured prominently in the film .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas is the correct venue to go after Netflix or if the film even fully crossed the line into the legal definition of true child exploitation or pornography .
But it certainly danced up uncomfortably close to the edge of it .
Sarandos should realize this also and he should know better than to swim against this tide .
Pulling the movie off his streaming service and issuing a brief apology should have been all that was required to put this behind him .
But instead , he ’ s going to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his guns .
We ’ ll see how that works out for his business down the line .

Somebody might want to mention the First Rule of Holes to Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos. His company is already taking enough heat over their decision to stream the foreign, child-erotica film “Cuties,” including the recent indictment in Texas that we discussed last week. But rather than taking their foot off the gas and finding a way to put this unpleasant episode behind him, Sarandos has decided to double down. While addressing some industry players yesterday, the Netflix executive decided to “explain” the controversy to the world, saying that his critics have it all wrong and he’s having a difficult time understanding what all the fuss is about. (Fox Business)
Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos is hitting back at critics who have been loud in their distaste of the controversial film “Cuties” that has spurred intense backlash since it debuted in September… Sarandos said during a virtual MIPCOM — the annual global market and conference for entertainment content — on Monday that the movie was “misunderstood” in America and took umbrage with language within the indictment that claimed “Cuties” “appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” “It’s a little surprising in 2020 America that we’re having a discussion about censoring storytelling,” Sarandos told the Mipcom market, according to Deadline.
I see. So the film is simply “misunderstood” by all of your clueless subscribers. It’s always worthwhile to clear up misunderstandings, but I’m not sure he’s about to convince anyone that this situation is something other than what it clearly is. He’s seriously arguing that it was insulting to the director for her work to be described as appealing to a prurient interest in underage girls and completely lacking any artistic merit. How dare you people say such things.
Sarandos went on to claim to be surprised that we’re all spending our time talking about “censoring storytelling.” I suppose that’s one way to put it, but keep in mind that Deep Throat had a storyline also. That didn’t mean that it was appropriate for all audiences. Further, that early classic of pornography at least had the good sense to use actors that were all legal adults.
What the Netflix co-CEO seems to fail to realize is that the uproar over “Cuties” isn’t a question of censorship. It’s not a question of pornography. It’s a question of something that walks dangerously close to the edge of child pornography, which is an entirely different animal. Child exploitation or child endangerment would be closer to the mark.
As I wrote at the beginning of this debacle, I understand the point that the film’s director was trying to make in defending the movie. If we take her at her word, she was trying to tell a story about young children with inadequate guidance who fall under the spell of YouTube “influencers” and get in trouble when they seek to emulate them. That’s a cautionary tale worth exploring. But it could have been done without the child erotica scenes featured prominently in the film.
I also remain uncertain if a court in Texas is the correct venue to go after Netflix or if the film even fully crossed the line into the legal definition of true child exploitation or pornography. But it certainly danced up uncomfortably close to the edge of it. Sarandos should realize this also and he should know better than to swim against this tide. Pulling the movie off his streaming service and issuing a brief apology should have been all that was required to put this behind him. But instead, he’s going to go to bat for the director and stick to his guns. We’ll see how that works out for his business down the line.


hotair--2020-10-13--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Old dogs, new dialogues, NYT prorogue, Simpsons demagogues, Netflix' le

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Old dogs, new dialogues, NYT prorogue, Simpsons demagogues, Netflix' legal slog, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Andrew wonders how we ended up with the oldest combined presidential contest ever in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll also discuss NYT managing editor Dean Baquet ’ s dismissal of criticism over the paper ’ s ethics and accuracy in its 1619 Project , and Joe Biden ’ s weird declaration t0 56 % of voters .
• All of this and more prompts the question — how do we fix our political culture ?
Can we cure our political divisions and overcome our moral conflicts ?
Dr. Kurt Gray of the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding explains “ affective polarization , ” why politics has eclipsed religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how we can overcome it .
• Will Netflix go to jail ?
Hollywood in Toto ’ s Christian Toto joins us to discuss Netflix ’ defense of Cuties while being in denial over cancel culture .
We ’ ll also discuss politicking by The Simpsons and its use of a “ fake news avalanche ” in attempting to influence viewers .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-10-13--Democrats' emoluments clause lawsuit against President Trump is dead

The Supreme Court on Tuesday put an end to a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats that accused President Donald Trump of violating anti-corruption provisions in the U.S. Constitution with his business dealings .
The justices refused to hear an appeal by 215 Senate and House of Representatives Democrats of a lower court ruling that found that the lawmakers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case that focused on the Republican president ’ s ownership of the Trump International Hotel in Washington… In the case brought by congressional Democrats , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of Congress have limited ability to litigate questions affecting the legislative branch as a whole .
One more little tidbit worth noting here .
Guess which judge was all for letting this case go forward initially : The congressional case reached the D.C. appeals court after Judge Emmet G. Sullivan cleared the way for lawmakers to issue 37 subpoenas seeking financial information , interviews and other records , including ones related to Trump Tower and his Mar-a-Lago Club in South Florida .
But that request was put on hold after the appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Trump ’ s request and with Sullivan ’ s consent — to consider the untested separation-of-powers issues .
If that name sounds familiar it ’ s because Judge Sullivan is the same judge still refusing to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn .
In order to really appreciate this win , it ’ s necessary to walk back through the entire history of emoluments clause lawsuits .
It began even before Trump was inaugurated when Richard Painter took over a position held by David Brock as Vice-Chairman of the board for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) .
Painter and board chairman Norm Eisen co-wrote a piece for the Atlantic headlined “ Trump Could Be in Violation of the Constitution His First Day in Office.
” In January 2017 , days after Trump ’ s inauguration , CREW announced plans to file a lawsuit along these lines , alleging that , in particular , Trump ’ s hotel put him in violation of the emoluments clause forbidding the acceptance of payments from foreign dignitaries .
Here ’ s a bit of what the NY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the lawsuit .
Right away there was a potential problem with the lawsuit : The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a liberal group known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , which until recently was controlled by David Brock , a Democratic Party operative and fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign… The lawsuit may run into trouble , other legal experts said , given that CREW , as the organization is known , must demonstrate that it would suffer direct and concrete injury to give it standing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did have a problem with standing , so in April 2017 CREW announced it was expanding the lawsuit : Then in June 2017 , Democrats jumped on the bandwagon announcing they would file their own version of the lawsuit .
Their hope was that Congress would be able to establish standing : “ We ’ ll be suing to stop his violations of the emoluments clause , ” senior House Judiciary member Jerry Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) confirmed in an interview .
The lawsuit won ’ t be filed until next week at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides of the Capitol have already signed on in support , Nadler said… Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) , who is spearheading the emoluments effort in the upper chamber , told POLITICO that “ there have been extensive discussions ” recently on moving forward with legal action… “ Members of Congress we say have standing because the emoluments clause says without the permission of Congress , you can ’ t accept any gift , etc.
, etc.
, from a foreign state , ” Nadler said .
“ We are injured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this , that ’ s our standing.
” So here we are nearly 3 1/2 years later and despite the best efforts of Rep. Nadler , Sen. Blumenthal , Judge Sullivan and dozens of other elected Democrats , the Supreme Court just let the air out of this balloon once and for all .
The Democrats ’ case is done but there are still two similar lawsuits , one brought by two attorneys general and the CREW lawsuit .
That lawsuit was dismissed back in December 2017 but was reinstated in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins re-election next month , we ’ ll probably see a surge of renewed interest in the case .

The Supreme Court on Tuesday put an end to a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats that accused President Donald Trump of violating anti-corruption provisions in the U.S. Constitution with his business dealings. The justices refused to hear an appeal by 215 Senate and House of Representatives Democrats of a lower court ruling that found that the lawmakers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case that focused on the Republican president’s ownership of the Trump International Hotel in Washington… In the case brought by congressional Democrats, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February ruled that individual members of Congress have limited ability to litigate questions affecting the legislative branch as a whole.
One more little tidbit worth noting here. Guess which judge was all for letting this case go forward initially:
The congressional case reached the D.C. appeals court after Judge Emmet G. Sullivan cleared the way for lawmakers to issue 37 subpoenas seeking financial information, interviews and other records, including ones related to Trump Tower and his Mar-a-Lago Club in South Florida. But that request was put on hold after the appeals court stepped in midstream and intervened — at Trump’s request and with Sullivan’s consent — to consider the untested separation-of-powers issues.
If that name sounds familiar it’s because Judge Sullivan is the same judge still refusing to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.
In order to really appreciate this win, it’s necessary to walk back through the entire history of emoluments clause lawsuits. It began even before Trump was inaugurated when Richard Painter took over a position held by David Brock as Vice-Chairman of the board for a left-leaning group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Painter and board chairman Norm Eisen co-wrote a piece for the Atlantic headlined “Trump Could Be in Violation of the Constitution His First Day in Office.”
In January 2017, days after Trump’s inauguration, CREW announced plans to file a lawsuit along these lines, alleging that, in particular, Trump’s hotel put him in violation of the emoluments clause forbidding the acceptance of payments from foreign dignitaries. Here’s a bit of what the NY Times reported back then about the people behind the lawsuit. Right away there was a potential problem with the lawsuit:
The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a liberal group known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which until recently was controlled by David Brock, a Democratic Party operative and fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton’s campaign… The lawsuit may run into trouble, other legal experts said, given that CREW, as the organization is known, must demonstrate that it would suffer direct and concrete injury to give it standing to sue.
As predicted, the lawsuit did have a problem with standing, so in April 2017 CREW announced it was expanding the lawsuit:
The revised complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, is an effort to address what some saw as a critical weakness in the group’s original lawsuit: the lack of a clear victim who could claim injuries resulting from Mr. Trump’s failure either to sell off his business holdings or to place them in a blind trust.
Then in June 2017, Democrats jumped on the bandwagon announcing they would file their own version of the lawsuit. Their hope was that Congress would be able to establish standing:
“We’ll be suing to stop his violations of the emoluments clause,” senior House Judiciary member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) confirmed in an interview. The lawsuit won’t be filed until next week at the earliest but dozens of Democrats on both sides of the Capitol have already signed on in support, Nadler said… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who is spearheading the emoluments effort in the upper chamber, told POLITICO that “there have been extensive discussions” recently on moving forward with legal action… “Members of Congress we say have standing because the emoluments clause says without the permission of Congress, you can’t accept any gift, etc., etc., from a foreign state,” Nadler said. “We are injured by being denied our right to vote on this, that’s our standing.”
So here we are nearly 3 1/2 years later and despite the best efforts of Rep. Nadler, Sen. Blumenthal, Judge Sullivan and dozens of other elected Democrats, the Supreme Court just let the air out of this balloon once and for all.
The Democrats’ case is done but there are still two similar lawsuits, one brought by two attorneys general and the CREW lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed back in December 2017 but was reinstated in 2019 and is still ongoing. If Trump wins re-election next month, we’ll probably see a surge of renewed interest in the case.


hotair--2020-10-13--Feinstein to Barrett: Do you agree with Scalia that Roe and Casey should be overturned?

Consider this box checked .
In fact , consider it checked three times , thanks to Dianne Feinstein ’ s insistence on repeating the same question while promising to rephrase it .
Before she gets around to asking it , Feinstein recalls the “ trips to Mexico ” made by women seeking abortion , and then cites Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s defense of abortion in her 1993 confirmation hearing .
“ I hope you will be equally forthright in your answers , ” Feinstein warns Amy Coney Barrett .
“ I guess I ’ ve gone as far as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Barrett offers the same answer three times — that she can ’ t take a position on an issue that ’ s likely to come before the court .
Ginsburg did , as Feinstein noted , but that was arguably improper , although it didn ’ t keep her from winning confirmation on a 96-3 vote in 1993 .
It would be as improper as Barrett pledging to protect landlords in fights against tenants , or pledging to support or oppose firearm owners .
That ’ s because it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with those policies .
That responsibility belongs to the legislature , which voters can hold accountable for their actions .
That ’ s where Feinstein is in serious error ; neither Roe nor Casey are “ law ” in a statutory sense , but they should have been if courts are supposed to “ defend ” them as Feinstein suggests .
Ironically , as I mentioned yesterday , Ginsburg herself made the same argument in declaring Roe faulty : For Ginsburg , the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-reaching and too sweeping , and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since .
Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone , a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law , spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “ Roe v. Wade at 40.
” “ My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change , ” Ginsburg said .
She would ’ ve preferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a process that included state legislatures and the courts , she added .
Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy , rather than women ’ s rights .
At this stage , though , what does being coy about this buy ?
If Barrett plans to approach cases in this way , then this is a fine answer .
But if she really thinks Roe is wrongly decided , why not say so ?
Playing coy won ’ t buy a 96-3 vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no more than 55 votes on the Senate floor , and likely less than that , under any circumstances .
But she won ’ t get less than 51 either , so what ’ s the point ?

Consider this box checked. In fact, consider it checked three times, thanks to Dianne Feinstein’s insistence on repeating the same question while promising to rephrase it. Before she gets around to asking it, Feinstein recalls the “trips to Mexico” made by women seeking abortion, and then cites Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s defense of abortion in her 1993 confirmation hearing. “I hope you will be equally forthright in your answers,” Feinstein warns Amy Coney Barrett.
Nice try:
Barrett declines to say whether she believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided or should be overturned: "I completely understand why you're asking the question, but again, I can't pre-commit or say, 'Yes, I'm going in with some agenda,' because I'm not" https://t.co/NN41m4Si1f pic.twitter.com/LRkP8hFdFB — CBS News (@CBSNews) October 13, 2020
“I guess I’ve gone as far as I can,” Feinstein finally concedes after Barrett offers the same answer three times — that she can’t take a position on an issue that’s likely to come before the court. Ginsburg did, as Feinstein noted, but that was arguably improper, although it didn’t keep her from winning confirmation on a 96-3 vote in 1993. It would be as improper as Barrett pledging to protect landlords in fights against tenants, or pledging to support or oppose firearm owners.
That’s because it’s not the role of the judiciary to deal with those policies. That responsibility belongs to the legislature, which voters can hold accountable for their actions. That’s where Feinstein is in serious error; neither Roe nor Casey are “law” in a statutory sense, but they should have been if courts are supposed to “defend” them as Feinstein suggests.
Ironically, as I mentioned yesterday, Ginsburg herself made the same argument in declaring Roe faulty:
For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since. Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
At this stage, though, what does being coy about this buy? If Barrett plans to approach cases in this way, then this is a fine answer. But if she really thinks Roe is wrongly decided, why not say so? Playing coy won’t buy a 96-3 vote for her confirmation; Barrett will get no more than 55 votes on the Senate floor, and likely less than that, under any circumstances. But she won’t get less than 51 either, so what’s the point?


hotair--2020-10-13--Just what Trump needs: A public fight with Fauci in the final weeks of the race

Recently a few friends on Twitter have begun conceptualizing the time Trump has left to try to turn the race around as a percentage .
Election Day is exactly three weeks away ; that means he has 21 days to ( mostly ) erase Biden ’ s lead , which also means that whatever ’ s in the news today will consume a little less than five percent of his remaining time .
Whatever ’ s in the news tomorrow will consume exactly five percent .
And what ’ s in the news the day after that will consume a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percentage growing day by day until it reaches 100 percent on November 3 .
Time is scarce .
When you ’ re in the sort of polling hole he ’ s in , you want to make sure that each day ’ s message and the resulting news is optimally tailored to give you the best chance of gaining ground .
Picking a fight with the country ’ s most well-known public-health figure when your biggest electoral liability is the perception that you ’ ve never taken the pandemic as seriously as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It ’ s more of an anti-strategy , the sort of thing you ’ d do if you wanted your opponent to win , than a strategy .
I don ’ t think Trump ’ s thinking strategically at all , in fact , unless by “ strategy ” we mean “ indulging his impulses at every given moment and trusting blindly that voters will love it.
” He ’ s just lashing out at critics , as he always does , and calling it “ counterpunching ” even though his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new spat with Fauci .
See why I ’ m confused as to why he didn ’ t wear a Superman t-shirt upon leaving Walter Reed ?
If you ’ re going to do self-destructive things in the home stretch of the campaign just because you feel like it , why not dress up like Superman too ?
Yesterday I wrote about the new ad he ’ s running featuring a clip of Fauci from March insisting that the coronavirus task force did everything possible to limit community spread .
Fauci took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken somewhat out of context and was presented as a quasi-endorsement of Trump .
I thought his complaints were overstated , but certainly Team Trump could have showed him the courtesy of asking in advance if he was okay with them using that quote in an ad .
Fauci ’ s a civil servant , not a political appointee , and he ’ s understandably sensitive to the public forming partisan judgments about him based on a perceived campaign affiliation .
He might also quite reasonably object to the White House trading on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Navarro and Mark Meadows have tried to undermine that credibility by criticizing him publicly , with some success .
Most of all , though , the campaign should have sought Fauci ’ s approval for the simple reason that the ad would obviously backfire on them if Fauci felt blindsided by it and took to criticizing it publicly .
The entire point of the spot is to suggest that Fauci is on Team Trump .
Pissing him off was guaranteed to start a media frenzy in which Fauci would be given multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s *not* on Team Trump .
Instead of trading on his credibility , the ensuing dispute would become a test of credibility between him and the president , with Fauci making a big show of withholding his endorsement .
So dumb .
But here ’ s what we ’ re doing on a day that represents nearly five percent of the president ’ s remaining campaign time .
He ’ s all but admitting that he ’ s complaining about the ad publicly to neutralize its effect on voters , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think they should have gotten his approval beforehand ?
The bit about “ kissing everyone ” is a reference to a joke Trump told at a rally last night , boasting of his newfound immunity to COVID by saying he ’ d be happy to kiss everyone there .
That ’ s amusing , but it also reminds voters that he and many of his fans have been reckless in protecting themselves from infection , which is how we ended up with a huge outbreak at the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the hospital for COVID and yet continues to pack crowds in together at rallies without requiring masks operates as another bit of anti-strategy .
Fauci dinged him for that too yesterday : The smart thing to do at this point would be to yank the ad , let the story quietly die , and refocus today ’ s message on , say , the economy .
But when all you have is impulses , not strategy , then the impulse is naturally to hit back : If Fauci ’ s prognostications are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature him in an ad ?
And why would you tee up the media to ask that question by insulting him ?
David Bahnsen made a smart point in this essay published a few days ago .
I ’ d vote for Trump if I lived in a battleground state , he wrote , but I also sympathize with people who can ’ t bring themselves to do so .
Quote : I have grave concerns with one who spent three decades seeking to avoid business and marital commitments , but once that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grapple with the complexity of one ’ s lifetime moral deficiencies towards a potential greater end .
But how can I do that if the very behavior and temperament I am talking about keep that person from staying in office long enough to do all the things I am told are so important for the betterment of the country ?
In other words , why is it the fault of those annoyed by boorish and crude and childish and stunningly unpresidential behavior and not the person who is , ummmm , President of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing I hear more than anything else from those confused by my [ fair and warranted ] criticisms of President Trump , it is that the desperation of the times calls for “ movement ” people like me to press pause on my fetishes for norms and manners , and just accept that the Supreme Court , lawlessness in the cities , cancel culture , and other sorts of truly desperate situations trump all of the unpleasantries of the President and his tweets .
And indeed , we are living in serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture are high right now .
And Joe Biden , Kamala Harris , and the Democratic Left have a vision for America right now that is self-evidently disastrous , and should be resisted and stopped at all costs .
And yet , I remain incredibly confused by the logic of this construction .
“ The times we are in are so severe that you must ignore A , B , and C behaviors from the President , but the times are not so severe that the President must refrain from behaviors A , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told in 2016 that it was a “ Flight 93 election ” in which all misgivings about Trump had to be laid aside to prevent Democrats from crashing the proverbial plane .
This year is a “ Flight 93 election ” too , the president would say .
And yet Bahnsen ’ s right — only Republican voters , not Trump himself , are expected to make sacrifices to prevent the crash .
It would have been a small sacrifice for him to substitute Scott Atlas in the campaign ad for Fauci , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all if Fauci objected , or at the very least not to hit back at Fauci after he complained publicly about the use of his image .
But he couldn ’ t resist .
He ’ s not storming the cockpit to take control of the plane before it crashes , he ’ s leaning on the controls and steering it into the ground because he ’ s not smart or self-disciplined enough to resist a fight that ’ s clearly damaging to him , even in the home stretch of an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t he insist on masked-up , socially distanced rallies for the final weeks of the campaign just to set a good example and earn some positive coverage , however belatedly ?
Why couldn ’ t he resist complaining about the FDA taking its time on approving a vaccine , even though his haste on getting something approved before Election Day has clearly hurt public confidence in the vaccine process and further damaged trust in him ?
Why didn ’ t he grab Senate Republicans by the lapels months ago and demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than sit on his hands while the economic recovery slowed down ?
Why didn ’ t he take basic precautions at the White House to avoid an October COVID outbreak that might effectively end his chances at reelection ?
At what point does Trump himself bear some blame for not treating this like a “ Flight 93 election ” by doing things that are designed to help his chances instead of whatever happens to be in his head at a given moment ?
I ’ ll leave you with this , another foreseeable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Recently a few friends on Twitter have begun conceptualizing the time Trump has left to try to turn the race around as a percentage. Election Day is exactly three weeks away; that means he has 21 days to (mostly) erase Biden’s lead, which also means that whatever’s in the news today will consume a little less than five percent of his remaining time. Whatever’s in the news tomorrow will consume exactly five percent. And what’s in the news the day after that will consume a bit more than five percent, with the percentage growing day by day until it reaches 100 percent on November 3.
Time is scarce. When you’re in the sort of polling hole he’s in, you want to make sure that each day’s message and the resulting news is optimally tailored to give you the best chance of gaining ground.
Picking a fight with the country’s most well-known public-health figure when your biggest electoral liability is the perception that you’ve never taken the pandemic as seriously as scientists recommended is not “optimally tailored.” It’s more of an anti-strategy, the sort of thing you’d do if you wanted your opponent to win, than a strategy. I don’t think Trump’s thinking strategically at all, in fact, unless by “strategy” we mean “indulging his impulses at every given moment and trusting blindly that voters will love it.” He’s just lashing out at critics, as he always does, and calling it “counterpunching” even though his campaign threw the first “punch” in this new spat with Fauci.
See why I’m confused as to why he didn’t wear a Superman t-shirt upon leaving Walter Reed? If you’re going to do self-destructive things in the home stretch of the campaign just because you feel like it, why not dress up like Superman too?
Yesterday I wrote about the new ad he’s running featuring a clip of Fauci from March insisting that the coronavirus task force did everything possible to limit community spread. Fauci took exception to that since the quote was taken somewhat out of context and was presented as a quasi-endorsement of Trump. I thought his complaints were overstated, but certainly Team Trump could have showed him the courtesy of asking in advance if he was okay with them using that quote in an ad. Fauci’s a civil servant, not a political appointee, and he’s understandably sensitive to the public forming partisan judgments about him based on a perceived campaign affiliation. He might also quite reasonably object to the White House trading on his public credibility when Trump cronies like Peter Navarro and Mark Meadows have tried to undermine that credibility by criticizing him publicly, with some success.
Most of all, though, the campaign should have sought Fauci’s approval for the simple reason that the ad would obviously backfire on them if Fauci felt blindsided by it and took to criticizing it publicly. The entire point of the spot is to suggest that Fauci is on Team Trump. Pissing him off was guaranteed to start a media frenzy in which Fauci would be given multiple opportunities on national TV to clarify that he’s *not* on Team Trump. Instead of trading on his credibility, the ensuing dispute would become a test of credibility between him and the president, with Fauci making a big show of withholding his endorsement.
So dumb. But here’s what we’re doing on a day that represents nearly five percent of the president’s remaining campaign time.
Dr. Anthony Fauci says “it’s really unfortunate and really disappointing” that the Trump campaign featured him in an ad touting the President’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. He tells @jaketapper that he thinks the ad should be taken down. https://t.co/oDDlgwvCkE pic.twitter.com/JLTbTVhJ7o — The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) October 12, 2020
Fauci wasn’t done:
Asked by The Daily Beast if his comments were a thinly-veiled threat to leave his post if he ended up in a new campaign spot, Fauci replied: “Not a chance.” “Not in my wildest freakin’ dreams,” he said, “did I ever think about quitting.” From there, Fauci went on to explain what he meant by “backfire.” “By doing this against my will they are, in effect, harassing me,” Fauci said. “Since campaign ads are about getting votes, their harassment of me might have the opposite effect of turning some voters off.”
He’s all but admitting that he’s complaining about the ad publicly to neutralize its effect on voters, and maybe even cost Trump votes. Still don’t think they should have gotten his approval beforehand?
Maybe there'd be a needle to thread for a skilled politician. I'm not sure high support for lockdowns in polls squares with people's behavior/revealed preferences. But attacking Dr. Fauci, or saying you're immune and want to kiss everyone, isn't it. https://t.co/JGVREvQXqT — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 13, 2020
The bit about “kissing everyone” is a reference to a joke Trump told at a rally last night, boasting of his newfound immunity to COVID by saying he’d be happy to kiss everyone there. That’s amusing, but it also reminds voters that he and many of his fans have been reckless in protecting themselves from infection, which is how we ended up with a huge outbreak at the White House. The fact that he needed to go to the hospital for COVID and yet continues to pack crowds in together at rallies without requiring masks operates as another bit of anti-strategy. Fauci dinged him for that too yesterday:
Dr. Fauci says Pres. Trump resuming in-person rallies is “asking for trouble” and “now is… a worse time to do that because when you look at what’s going on in the United States it’s really very troublesome. A number of states, right now, are having increase in test positivity” pic.twitter.com/cXPSXIg4aS — The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) October 12, 2020
The smart thing to do at this point would be to yank the ad, let the story quietly die, and refocus today’s message on, say, the economy. But when all you have is impulses, not strategy, then the impulse is naturally to hit back:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1315988404694396929
If Fauci’s prognostications are worthless, why the hell would you feature him in an ad? And why would you tee up the media to ask that question by insulting him?
David Bahnsen made a smart point in this essay published a few days ago. I’d vote for Trump if I lived in a battleground state, he wrote, but I also sympathize with people who can’t bring themselves to do so. Quote:
I have grave concerns with one who spent three decades seeking to avoid business and marital commitments, but once that person was elected, perhaps I could grapple with the complexity of one’s lifetime moral deficiencies towards a potential greater end. But how can I do that if the very behavior and temperament I am talking about keep that person from staying in office long enough to do all the things I am told are so important for the betterment of the country? In other words, why is it the fault of those annoyed by boorish and crude and childish and stunningly unpresidential behavior and not the person who is, ummmm, President of the United States? If there is one thing I hear more than anything else from those confused by my [fair and warranted] criticisms of President Trump, it is that the desperation of the times calls for “movement” people like me to press pause on my fetishes for norms and manners, and just accept that the Supreme Court, lawlessness in the cities, cancel culture, and other sorts of truly desperate situations trump all of the unpleasantries of the President and his tweets. And indeed, we are living in serious times. And the stakes in our culture are high right now. And Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democratic Left have a vision for America right now that is self-evidently disastrous, and should be resisted and stopped at all costs. And yet, I remain incredibly confused by the logic of this construction. “The times we are in are so severe that you must ignore A, B, and C behaviors from the President, but the times are not so severe that the President must refrain from behaviors A, B, and C.”
We were told in 2016 that it was a “Flight 93 election” in which all misgivings about Trump had to be laid aside to prevent Democrats from crashing the proverbial plane. This year is a “Flight 93 election” too, the president would say. And yet Bahnsen’s right — only Republican voters, not Trump himself, are expected to make sacrifices to prevent the crash. It would have been a small sacrifice for him to substitute Scott Atlas in the campaign ad for Fauci, or not to run the ad at all if Fauci objected, or at the very least not to hit back at Fauci after he complained publicly about the use of his image. But he couldn’t resist. He’s not storming the cockpit to take control of the plane before it crashes, he’s leaning on the controls and steering it into the ground because he’s not smart or self-disciplined enough to resist a fight that’s clearly damaging to him, even in the home stretch of an election.
The examples are endless. Why couldn’t he insist on masked-up, socially distanced rallies for the final weeks of the campaign just to set a good example and earn some positive coverage, however belatedly? Why couldn’t he resist complaining about the FDA taking its time on approving a vaccine, even though his haste on getting something approved before Election Day has clearly hurt public confidence in the vaccine process and further damaged trust in him? Why didn’t he grab Senate Republicans by the lapels months ago and demand that they pass a robust stimulus rather than sit on his hands while the economic recovery slowed down?
Why didn’t he take basic precautions at the White House to avoid an October COVID outbreak that might effectively end his chances at reelection?
At what point does Trump himself bear some blame for not treating this like a “Flight 93 election” by doing things that are designed to help his chances instead of whatever happens to be in his head at a given moment?
I’ll leave you with this, another foreseeable consequence of picking a fight with Fauci.


hotair--2020-10-13--At New York's PBS station, the Inclusion and Diversity Council demanded the CEO resign

WNET is New York ’ s public television station and since 2007 its CEO has been Neal Shapiro .
In 2015 , employees at WNET formed the Inclusion and Diversity Council ( IDC ) .
This year , after the killing of George Floyd , the IDC became angry with what it saw as the halting and inappropriate response by Shapiro .
Employees at WNET wanted the company to issue a statement of support for Black Lives Matter .
Six days after Floyd ’ s death , Shapiro issued a statement which said in part : Racism is a cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This has been an agonizing and painful week .
Our hearts go out to so many , especially so for our African-American colleagues .
At the same time , it is also a reminder of what drew many of us to public media–to help build a more informed country with equal justice for everyone based on understanding and mutual respect .
The IDC didn ’ t like the statement .
In particular , they thought the metaphor of racism as a cancer was offensive .
About a week later the IDC sent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reasons they were upset with him : We express our anger and frustration at the way WNET and its leadership has responded to the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent unfolding events… On Monday , June 1st , you did address this national crisis—simultaneously promoting WNET content—by publishing a statement on WNET.org , describing racism as “ a cancer in the soul of this nation.
” We have many objections to the content of the June 1 statement , starting with your characterization of racism as a cancer , which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this represents your profound misunderstanding of our nation ’ s history and its current reality .
Racism is not an anomaly separate from us , rather , it is woven into the fabric of this country and , in fact , our own institution .
Let ’ s pause there for a moment .
Why is the Inclusion and Diversity Council so upset with this reference to racism as a cancer ?
It ’ s hard to think of anything more intimately woven into something else than cancer which is literally our own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any case about a month after the authors of this letter objected to that metaphor , bestselling anti-racism author Ibram X. Kendi gave an interview to PBS News Hour in which he compared racism to cancer : When we think about the way in which we go about treating cancer , particularly metastatic cancer , that ’ s how we can treat metastatic racism , particularly within a society .
And so there ’ s typically a local treatment , in which doctors go in and surgically remove the tumors , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove racist policies .
And doctors do a systemic treatment , in which they flood the body with the chemotherapy , which is equivalent to flooding the body with anti-racist policies that have been proven to reduce racial inequity .
I ’ d love to see the reaction of the IDC members to Ibram Kendi using the same metaphor they objected to their CEO using .
Maybe they should issue a statement that Kendi has a “ profound misunderstanding ” of reality .
It sort of suggests their complaint was nonsense from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t the IDC ’ s only problem with Shapiro .
The letter also objected to a video the station had published .
The video has since been pulled down but here ’ s how the NY Times described it : The IDC referred to the video as “ positive , promotional imagery of the police.
” Clearly we can ’ t have that .
In mid-June , WNET announced that a black woman named Eugenia Harvey would take on a new role as the chief diversity , equity and inclusion officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was using Harvey as a shield .
The last straw came in September when WNET announced it would be restructuring the IDC itself .
IDC members responded by publishing an open letter last week demanding that CEO Shapiro resign .
Senior Management on Friday , September 25th , described to the IDC and others in attendance how it would replace the existing IDC—an officially-chartered employee group with nearly 100 active members , representing exactly the diverse , cross-departmental body leadership says they want in a diversity council—with a closed , 12-person “ Inclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Council , ” chosen and overseen by a secret panel chaired by the Chief Diversity , Equity & Inclusion Officer ( CDEIO ) , with opacity as the only apparent governing principle .
This stunning move represents nothing less than a systematic dismantling of the IDC and the delegitimizing of all the hard work its members have undertaken over the past four months ( or , for that matter , the past five years ) .
It sounds as if Shapiro is going to survive the attempt by the woke to oust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up better than James Bennett did at the NY Times .
Maybe this means there are still ways to prevent activists from taking control of organizations from within .
Or maybe this is just the first round and the activists will find some other way to push Shapiro out before long .

WNET is New York’s public television station and since 2007 its CEO has been Neal Shapiro. In 2015, employees at WNET formed the Inclusion and Diversity Council (IDC). This year, after the killing of George Floyd, the IDC became angry with what it saw as the halting and inappropriate response by Shapiro. Employees at WNET wanted the company to issue a statement of support for Black Lives Matter. Six days after Floyd’s death, Shapiro issued a statement which said in part:
Racism is a cancer in the soul of this nation. This has been an agonizing and painful week. Our hearts go out to so many, especially so for our African-American colleagues. At the same time, it is also a reminder of what drew many of us to public media–to help build a more informed country with equal justice for everyone based on understanding and mutual respect.
The IDC didn’t like the statement. In particular, they thought the metaphor of racism as a cancer was offensive. About a week later the IDC sent a letter to Shapiro which offered a list of reasons they were upset with him:
We express our anger and frustration at the way WNET and its leadership has responded to the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent unfolding events… On Monday, June 1st, you did address this national crisis—simultaneously promoting WNET content—by publishing a statement on WNET.org, describing racism as “a cancer in the soul of this nation.” We have many objections to the content of the June 1 statement, starting with your characterization of racism as a cancer, which we reject. It is our view that this represents your profound misunderstanding of our nation’s history and its current reality. Racism is not an anomaly separate from us, rather, it is woven into the fabric of this country and, in fact, our own institution.
Let’s pause there for a moment. Why is the Inclusion and Diversity Council so upset with this reference to racism as a cancer? It’s hard to think of anything more intimately woven into something else than cancer which is literally our own cells replicating out of control. In any case about a month after the authors of this letter objected to that metaphor, bestselling anti-racism author Ibram X. Kendi gave an interview to PBS News Hour in which he compared racism to cancer:
When we think about the way in which we go about treating cancer, particularly metastatic cancer, that’s how we can treat metastatic racism, particularly within a society. And so there’s typically a local treatment, in which doctors go in and surgically remove the tumors, in the way we can go in and surgically remove racist policies. And doctors do a systemic treatment, in which they flood the body with the chemotherapy, which is equivalent to flooding the body with anti-racist policies that have been proven to reduce racial inequity.
I’d love to see the reaction of the IDC members to Ibram Kendi using the same metaphor they objected to their CEO using. Maybe they should issue a statement that Kendi has a “profound misunderstanding” of reality. It sort of suggests their complaint was nonsense from the start.
In any case, that wasn’t the IDC’s only problem with Shapiro. The letter also objected to a video the station had published. The video has since been pulled down but here’s how the NY Times described it:
Another point of contention between the council and WNET management was a 36-second video the company posted on its social media accounts on June 3. Set to a plaintive piano, the video presented images of harmony between New York City police officers and citizens. In one photo, a Black man in a hoodie is seen fist-bumping a white police officer in riot gear; in another, a white police officer marches in a protest next to a Black woman wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt; the montage also showed a Black woman embracing a white police officer.
The IDC referred to the video as “positive, promotional imagery of the police.” Clearly we can’t have that.
In mid-June, WNET announced that a black woman named Eugenia Harvey would take on a new role as the chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer. The IDC said it felt Shapiro was using Harvey as a shield.
The last straw came in September when WNET announced it would be restructuring the IDC itself. IDC members responded by publishing an open letter last week demanding that CEO Shapiro resign.
Senior Management on Friday, September 25th, described to the IDC and others in attendance how it would replace the existing IDC—an officially-chartered employee group with nearly 100 active members, representing exactly the diverse, cross-departmental body leadership says they want in a diversity council—with a closed, 12-person “Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Advisory (IDEA) Council,” chosen and overseen by a secret panel chaired by the Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer (CDEIO), with opacity as the only apparent governing principle. This stunning move represents nothing less than a systematic dismantling of the IDC and the delegitimizing of all the hard work its members have undertaken over the past four months (or, for that matter, the past five years).
It sounds as if Shapiro is going to survive the attempt by the woke to oust him. He’s certainly holding up better than James Bennett did at the NY Times. Maybe this means there are still ways to prevent activists from taking control of organizations from within. Or maybe this is just the first round and the activists will find some other way to push Shapiro out before long.


hotair--2020-10-13--California Republicans are setting up their own ballot drop boxes

This sounds like more of a nothingburger than any sort of constitutional crisis , but if nothing else it may be good for a laugh .
Out in California , the battle over mail-in ballots and collection boxes is raging as it is across much of the country .
But in the Golden State , Republicans have added a twist to the story .
They ’ ve taken to distributing their own drop boxes in locations including churches and gun shops .
These collection boxes are not produced or placed by state election officials , so the Democrats in charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming that the boxes are illegal .
But at least thus far , the GOP is basically telling them to pound sand .
( Associated Press ) California ’ s chief elections official on Monday ordered Republicans to remove unofficial ballot drop boxes from churches , gun shops and other locations and Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned those behind the “ vote tampering ” could face prosecution .
Republicans refused , saying they are taking advantage of California ’ s liberal ballot collection law that allows anyone to collect ballots from voters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As of right now , we ’ re going to continue our ballot harvesting program , ” California Republican Party spokesman Hector Barajas said .
Due to the coronavirus and concerns about health safety at polling places , California for the first time mailed ballots for the Nov. 3 election to all active registered voters — more than 21 million people .
The ballots come with pre-paid envelopes for voters to mail back , free of charge .
Both the state ’ s Attorney General and Secretary of State ( both Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans setting up these boxes .
Alex Padilla sent out a letter “ ordering ” them to remove the boxes by Thursday and to further supply election officials with a list of the names and birthdays of any voters who may have already submitted their ballots using the boxes .
The fact that the Republicans are refusing indicates that they ’ ve already looked into the applicable laws and know they are in the clear .
And from the sound of it , the Democrats may have hung themselves out to dry by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it “ as easy as possible ” for people to vote .
They specifically legalized ballot harvesting , allowing voters to ask anyone else to return their ballot for them if they can ’ t or won ’ t do it themselves .
There is no provision saying how the ballot must be collected , stored or transported once the voter has turned it over .
Previously , anyone choosing to do this would have to have the person harvesting the ballot sign the envelope and state their relationship to the voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stripped that provision out .
Under those rules ( or lack of rules in this case ) , the voter can “ ask ” the people hosting the collection boxes to submit the ballots for them by dropping them in the designated boxes .
So the Democrats are spitting mad , but as one state GOP spokesperson put it , the Democrats appear to be all in favor of ballot harvesting until somebody else wants to do it .
The Attorney General is threatening to prosecute “ anyone who knowingly engages in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s certainly something he should do if they actually find people engaged in such illegal activity .
But in California , as I mentioned above , anyone can take the sealed ballot of another voter who asks them to and transport it to the appropriate destination .
That ’ s not tampering or misuse .
It ’ s just playing by the rules that the Democrats themselves established .
The temper tantrum currently being thrown by California Democrats is amusing to behold .
But the reality is that they made this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to need to sleep in it .

This sounds like more of a nothingburger than any sort of constitutional crisis, but if nothing else it may be good for a laugh. Out in California, the battle over mail-in ballots and collection boxes is raging as it is across much of the country. But in the Golden State, Republicans have added a twist to the story. They’ve taken to distributing their own drop boxes in locations including churches and gun shops. These collection boxes are not produced or placed by state election officials, so the Democrats in charge of the state are complaining loudly, claiming that the boxes are illegal. But at least thus far, the GOP is basically telling them to pound sand. (Associated Press)
California’s chief elections official on Monday ordered Republicans to remove unofficial ballot drop boxes from churches, gun shops and other locations and Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned those behind the “vote tampering” could face prosecution. Republicans refused, saying they are taking advantage of California’s liberal ballot collection law that allows anyone to collect ballots from voters and deliver them to county election offices. “As of right now, we’re going to continue our ballot harvesting program,” California Republican Party spokesman Hector Barajas said. Due to the coronavirus and concerns about health safety at polling places, California for the first time mailed ballots for the Nov. 3 election to all active registered voters — more than 21 million people. The ballots come with pre-paid envelopes for voters to mail back, free of charge.
Both the state’s Attorney General and Secretary of State (both Democrats) are talking about potentially prosecuting any Republicans setting up these boxes. Alex Padilla sent out a letter “ordering” them to remove the boxes by Thursday and to further supply election officials with a list of the names and birthdays of any voters who may have already submitted their ballots using the boxes.
The fact that the Republicans are refusing indicates that they’ve already looked into the applicable laws and know they are in the clear. And from the sound of it, the Democrats may have hung themselves out to dry by passing a flurry of laws designed to make it “as easy as possible” for people to vote. They specifically legalized ballot harvesting, allowing voters to ask anyone else to return their ballot for them if they can’t or won’t do it themselves. There is no provision saying how the ballot must be collected, stored or transported once the voter has turned it over.
Previously, anyone choosing to do this would have to have the person harvesting the ballot sign the envelope and state their relationship to the voter. But in 2018, the Democrats stripped that provision out. Under those rules (or lack of rules in this case), the voter can “ask” the people hosting the collection boxes to submit the ballots for them by dropping them in the designated boxes.
So the Democrats are spitting mad, but as one state GOP spokesperson put it, the Democrats appear to be all in favor of ballot harvesting until somebody else wants to do it. The Attorney General is threatening to prosecute “anyone who knowingly engages in the tampering or misuse of a vote.” That’s certainly something he should do if they actually find people engaged in such illegal activity. But in California, as I mentioned above, anyone can take the sealed ballot of another voter who asks them to and transport it to the appropriate destination. That’s not tampering or misuse. It’s just playing by the rules that the Democrats themselves established.
The temper tantrum currently being thrown by California Democrats is amusing to behold. But the reality is that they made this bed and now they’re going to need to sleep in it.


hotair--2020-10-13--NYT managing editor: "Firmly reject" criticism of 1619 Project, "fell fully within our standards as

NYT managing editor: "Firmly reject" criticism of 1619 Project, "fell fully within our standards as a news organization"

In other words , everything conservatives have said about editorial standards at the New York Times turns out to be true .
After columnist Bret Stephens finally opened up some in-house criticism of the “ 1619 Project , ” pressure built on the organization to respond to the accusations of editorial and intellectual dishonesty and inaccuracies in both the project itself and how the NYT comported itself afterward .
Managing editor Dean Baquet finally responded just a few minutes ago by proclaiming that all of the issues Stephens identified — criticisms which have also percolated for months across the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards as a news organization.
” Well , at least Baquet ’ s honest about intellectual dishonesty at the Gray Lady : This column , however , raised questions about the journalistic ethics and standards of 1619 and the work of Nikole Hannah-Jones , who inspired and drove the project .
That criticism I firmly reject .
The project fell fully within our standards as a news organization .
In fact , 1619 — and especially the work of Nikole — fill me with pride .
Our readers , and I believe our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principled , rigorous and groundbreaking journalism of Nikole and the full team of writers and editors who brought us this transformative work .
Which part of these fills Baquet with pride ?
• The NYT memory-holing the claim that 1619 was the country ’ s “ true founding ” without acknowledging their post-facto edits , let alone explaining them • Hannah-Jones dishonestly denying she or the paper made that claim • Ignoring input from actual experts in the field about the arguments and conclusions made in the 1619 Project prior to publication • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field after publication • Refusing to issue corrections to factual errors and misrepresentations Baquet never addresses these issues .
In fact , his statement is remarkable for its utter lack of response to either Stephens or to the myriad other critics of the 1619 Project and the Times , both substantively and ethically , for their handling of the controversy .
In his silence , Baquet tacitly approves of all these tactics , and not just approves but positively embraces them .
If the media industry wonders why the American public ranks them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should recall this stance from the “ Paper of Record ” — the one that stealth-edited the record and then proclaimed that it was proud of itself .
Without ever answering any criticism or providing even a rudimentary form of accountability , no less .
The message here is clear : We can lie to you with impunity , and we don ’ t even care if you catch us .

In other words, everything conservatives have said about editorial standards at the New York Times turns out to be true. After columnist Bret Stephens finally opened up some in-house criticism of the “1619 Project,” pressure built on the organization to respond to the accusations of editorial and intellectual dishonesty and inaccuracies in both the project itself and how the NYT comported itself afterward. Managing editor Dean Baquet finally responded just a few minutes ago by proclaiming that all of the issues Stephens identified — criticisms which have also percolated for months across the political spectrum — “fell fully within our standards as a news organization.”
Well, at least Baquet’s honest about intellectual dishonesty at the Gray Lady:
This column, however, raised questions about the journalistic ethics and standards of 1619 and the work of Nikole Hannah-Jones, who inspired and drove the project. That criticism I firmly reject. The project fell fully within our standards as a news organization. In fact, 1619 — and especially the work of Nikole — fill me with pride. Our readers, and I believe our country, have benefited immensely from the principled, rigorous and groundbreaking journalism of Nikole and the full team of writers and editors who brought us this transformative work.
Which part of these fills Baquet with pride?
Baquet never addresses these issues. In fact, his statement is remarkable for its utter lack of response to either Stephens or to the myriad other critics of the 1619 Project and the Times, both substantively and ethically, for their handling of the controversy. In his silence, Baquet tacitly approves of all these tactics, and not just approves but positively embraces them.
If the media industry wonders why the American public ranks them below Congress in terms of trustworthiness, they should recall this stance from the “Paper of Record” — the one that stealth-edited the record and then proclaimed that it was proud of itself. Without ever answering any criticism or providing even a rudimentary form of accountability, no less. The message here is clear: We can lie to you with impunity, and we don’t even care if you catch us.
Message received, Mr. Baquet. Loud and clear.