hotair--2020-06-18--Matt Taibbi: False accusations of racism are destroying the media

Last week I wrote about a progressive data analyst who was fired for citing research ( by a black author ) that suggested peaceful protests were more effective than violent ones in creating political change .
No one claimed the data analyst had misstated the research or that the research itself was false .
He was mobbed on Twitter and then fired because he ’ d said something that appeared to be critical of riots and , by extension , could be seen as critical of Black Lives Matter protesters .
There was another similar situation last week which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist named Lee Fang who writes for the Intercept came close to being fired after posting an interview online .
Tens of thousands of people eventually weighed in against him .
What was the content of this explosive interview ?
Fang spoke to a black person who said , “ I always question , why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it ?
” Again , the person who said this is a real person named Max .
Fang didn ’ t put these words in his mouth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea what the man was going to say in advance .
But for publishing and thereby amplifying a voice that some thought sounded too much like a conservative response about black-on-black crime , Fang was denounced as a racist by one of his co-workers !
Rolling Stone ’ s Matt Taibbi wrote about the incident last week : A co-worker of Fang ’ s , Akela Lacy , wrote , “ Tired of being made to deal continually with my co-worker @ lhfang continuing to push black on black crime narratives after being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t about me and him , it ’ s about institutional racism and using free speech to couch anti-blackness .
I am so fucking tired.
” She followed with , “ Stop being racist Lee.
” The tweet received tens of thousands of likes and responses along the lines of , “ Lee Fang has been like this for years , but the current moment only makes his anti-Blackness more glaring , ” and “ Lee Fang spouting racist bullshit it must be a day ending in day.
” A significant number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all white , as well as reporters from other major news organizations like the New York Times and MSNBC and political activists ( one former Elizabeth Warren staffer tweeted , “ Get him !
” ) , issued likes and messages of support for the notion that Fang was a racist .
Though he had support within the organization , no one among his co-workers was willing to say anything in his defense publicly… To save his career , Fang had to craft a public apology for “ insensitivity to the lived experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his , it ’ s been communicated to Fang that his continued employment at The Intercept is contingent upon avoiding comments that may upset colleagues .
Lacy to her credit publicly thanked Fang for his statement and expressed willingness to have a conversation ; unfortunately , the throng of Intercept co-workers who piled on her initial accusation did not join her in this… Lacy says she never intended for Fang to be “ fired , ‘ canceled , ’ or deplatformed , ” but appeared irritated by questions on the subject , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more concern about naming racism than letting it persist.
” Max himself was stunned to find out that his comments on all this had created a Twitter firestorm .
“ I couldn ’ t believe they were coming for the man ’ s job over something I said , ” he recounts .
“ It was not Lee ’ s opinion .
It was my opinion.
” Taibbi appeared on the Hill ’ s “ Rising ” show this week to talk about the incident .
“ Essentially the problem is if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee accuses you of racism , either your career is over or your reputation is ruined , ” he said .
He continued , “ What ends up happening is that people just sort of shrink back from wherever they perceive the boundaries are and don ’ t say anything .
And that ’ s not a healthy climate for journalism.
” Later he returned to this point saying , “ If you ’ re labeled a racist in this corner of the media you really can ’ t work .
So if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result of that , where is he going to go ?
Fox after that ?
” Taibbi made clear in his piece and in the interview with the Hill that he sees the Fang incident as just one example of a more widespread change taking place in journalism .
He said the new “ style of thought ” had originated on college campuses but was now finding a home in many newsrooms .
“ It ’ s bullying in tone , it ’ s accusatory , it uses shaming tactics and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberties .
It ’ s very illiberal in its conception of the world.
” He cited the battle within the NY Times newsroom over the Sen. Cotton op-ed as another example .
In that case , staffers at the paper claimed the op-ed was putting their lives in danger and that ’ s what eventually led the Times to do an about face .
In each case , with Lee Fang , with the fired data analyst and at the NY Times , you have accusations of racism used to push people out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case come very close ) .
” It ’ s this mechanism that ’ s being repeated over and over again.
” At the end of this interview , Krystal Ball asked Taibbi where to draw the line between ideas that belong in a paper like the NY Times and ideas that you wouldn ’ t want to see given space anywhere .
Taibbi conceded there are some arguments that are simply beyond the pale , but he said the debate about where to draw the line was happening because there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to draw that line .
His view is that the Times , as a leading paper , should try to represent the full spectrum of actual debate .
“ When the member of congress opens up his Times in the morning , he wants to see what the parameters of debate are , ” Taibbi said .
He continued , “ These people are thinking this .
These people are thinking that .
What the Times is now saying is ‘ You can ’ t see what one side of the aisle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not going to permit that.
’ So you have to go to Fox News now to see that argument made .
“ I don ’ t think that ’ s helpful .
What it really accomplishes is it puts your readers in the dark about what a huge segment of the country is thinking.
” I think he ’ s exactly right .
The leftist insurgents in these newsrooms are working to shut down space for what is considered acceptable debate and lots of regular people are following their lead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matt Taibbi :

Last week I wrote about a progressive data analyst who was fired for citing research (by a black author) that suggested peaceful protests were more effective than violent ones in creating political change. No one claimed the data analyst had misstated the research or that the research itself was false. He was mobbed on Twitter and then fired because he’d said something that appeared to be critical of riots and, by extension, could be seen as critical of Black Lives Matter protesters.
There was another similar situation last week which I mentioned in passing here. A progressive journalist named Lee Fang who writes for the Intercept came close to being fired after posting an interview online. Tens of thousands of people eventually weighed in against him. What was the content of this explosive interview? Fang spoke to a black person who said, “I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?”
Again, the person who said this is a real person named Max. Fang didn’t put these words in his mouth. In fact he probably had no idea what the man was going to say in advance. But for publishing and thereby amplifying a voice that some thought sounded too much like a conservative response about black-on-black crime, Fang was denounced as a racist by one of his co-workers! Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi wrote about the incident last week:
A co-worker of Fang’s, Akela Lacy, wrote, “Tired of being made to deal continually with my co-worker @lhfang continuing to push black on black crime narratives after being repeatedly asked not to. This isn’t about me and him, it’s about institutional racism and using free speech to couch anti-blackness. I am so fucking tired.” She followed with, “Stop being racist Lee.” The tweet received tens of thousands of likes and responses along the lines of, “Lee Fang has been like this for years, but the current moment only makes his anti-Blackness more glaring,” and “Lee Fang spouting racist bullshit it must be a day ending in day.” A significant number of Fang’s co-workers, nearly all white, as well as reporters from other major news organizations like the New York Times and MSNBC and political activists (one former Elizabeth Warren staffer tweeted, “Get him!”), issued likes and messages of support for the notion that Fang was a racist. Though he had support within the organization, no one among his co-workers was willing to say anything in his defense publicly… To save his career, Fang had to craft a public apology for “insensitivity to the lived experience of others.” According to one friend of his, it’s been communicated to Fang that his continued employment at The Intercept is contingent upon avoiding comments that may upset colleagues. Lacy to her credit publicly thanked Fang for his statement and expressed willingness to have a conversation; unfortunately, the throng of Intercept co-workers who piled on her initial accusation did not join her in this… Lacy says she never intended for Fang to be “fired, ‘canceled,’ or deplatformed,” but appeared irritated by questions on the subject, which she says suggest, “there is more concern about naming racism than letting it persist.” Max himself was stunned to find out that his comments on all this had created a Twitter firestorm. “I couldn’t believe they were coming for the man’s job over something I said,” he recounts. “It was not Lee’s opinion. It was my opinion.”
Taibbi appeared on the Hill’s “Rising” show this week to talk about the incident. “Essentially the problem is if you say a certain thing and an employee accuses you of racism, either your career is over or your reputation is ruined,” he said. He continued, “What ends up happening is that people just sort of shrink back from wherever they perceive the boundaries are and don’t say anything. And that’s not a healthy climate for journalism.” Later he returned to this point saying, “If you’re labeled a racist in this corner of the media you really can’t work. So if he were to lose his job as a result of that, where is he going to go? Fox after that?”
Taibbi made clear in his piece and in the interview with the Hill that he sees the Fang incident as just one example of a more widespread change taking place in journalism. He said the new “style of thought” had originated on college campuses but was now finding a home in many newsrooms. “It’s bullying in tone, it’s accusatory, it uses shaming tactics and it doesn’t particularly believe in civil liberties. It’s very illiberal in its conception of the world.”
He cited the battle within the NY Times newsroom over the Sen. Cotton op-ed as another example. In that case, staffers at the paper claimed the op-ed was putting their lives in danger and that’s what eventually led the Times to do an about face. In each case, with Lee Fang, with the fired data analyst and at the NY Times, you have accusations of racism used to push people out of their jobs (or in Fang’s case come very close).”It’s this mechanism that’s being repeated over and over again.”
At the end of this interview, Krystal Ball asked Taibbi where to draw the line between ideas that belong in a paper like the NY Times and ideas that you wouldn’t want to see given space anywhere. Taibbi conceded there are some arguments that are simply beyond the pale, but he said the debate about where to draw the line was happening because there were two different worldviews in conflict about how to draw that line. His view is that the Times, as a leading paper, should try to represent the full spectrum of actual debate.
“When the member of congress opens up his Times in the morning, he wants to see what the parameters of debate are,” Taibbi said. He continued, “These people are thinking this. These people are thinking that. What the Times is now saying is ‘You can’t see what one side of the aisle is thinking in our newspaper. We’re not going to permit that.’ So you have to go to Fox News now to see that argument made.
“I don’t think that’s helpful. What it really accomplishes is it puts your readers in the dark about what a huge segment of the country is thinking.”
I think he’s exactly right. The leftist insurgents in these newsrooms are working to shut down space for what is considered acceptable debate and lots of regular people are following their lead. Here’s the full interview with Matt Taibbi:


hotair--2020-06-18--Facebook yanks Trump "red triangle" campaign ad because it fostered "organized hate"

I saw this tweet last night and glossed over it on the assumption that it couldn ’ t be as bad as it looked and there must be some important context that was missing that would explain it .
There was context , it turns out .
But not enough to stop Facebook from nuking it .
Facebook removed 88 ads Thursday posted by the accounts of President Donald Trump , the Trump campaign and Vice President Mike Pence that the social media giant said were “ violating our policy against organized hate.
” All of the identical ads featured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used by the Nazi party in World War II to identify political dissidents in concentration camps .
The ads caught the attention of some Twitter users Thursday who pointed out the symbol ’ s historical significance… “ Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group ’ s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol , ” [ a Facebook ] spokesperson wrote .
I have no difficulty believing that Trump had nothing to do with this and that he wouldn ’ t have recognized the red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ads before they went up .
By his own admission , he didn ’ t know what Juneteenth was until a few days ago when a black Secret Service agent told him .
The odds of him being able to identify lesser-known Nazi concentration camp badges for prisoners are slim to none .
Whether the staffer behind the ads was able to identify them is a separate question .
Reporters started sniffing around and asked the Trump campaign where they got the idea that the inverted red triangle is a symbol for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used ” by the group , the campaign replied : But that image comes from a make-your-own-merchandise site posted by some rando in Spain .
It apparently doesn ’ t exist elsewhere on the Internet , although there is a Dutch Antifa group that uses a red triangle in its logo .
There *are* well-known symbols of Antifa out there — we ’ ve all seen the double-flag icon pictured here , for instance .
How ’ d the campaign end up overlooking that one for a red triangle ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t appear in the ADL ’ s compendium of hate symbols , as the campaign notes , but there ’ s a reason for that : Murtaugh , the Trump campaign spokesman , noted that the marking is not included in the Anti-Defamation League ’ s database of hate symbols .
But the ADL ’ s CEO , Jonathan Greenblatt , condemned its use in political combat as “ offensive and deeply troubling.
” “ It is not difficult for one to criticize their political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery , ” Greenblatt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implore the Trump campaign to take greater caution and familiarize themselves with the historical context before doing so .
Ignorance is not an excuse for appropriating hateful symbols.
” Jake Hyman , an ADL spokesman , said the marking is not in the organization ’ s hate database because the inventory is not for “ historical Nazi symbols ” but rather for “ symbols commonly used by modern extremists and white supremacists in the United States.
” The most charitable explanation for this episode is that some Trump staffer encountered the red triangle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message board somewhere and stupidly assumed that it was Internet-created shorthand for the group .
( The sh*tposters themselves would know the symbol ’ s pedigree , of course . )
The campaign might not want to admit that , though , in which case they ’ d need an alternate explanation .
Pity the poor aides who had to scramble this morning and find some image of Antifa with a red triangle in it online , however obscure , so that they could retcon a story about where they got the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the material they had to work with .
As for why Facebook leaped to punish the Trump campaign after Mark Zuckerberg made a show recently of saying his platform wouldn ’ t ride herd on Trump content the way Twitter does , read this .
Lots of Facebook employees are unhappy with that policy ; at least one has quit over it .
In an extreme case , like when Nazi imagery is being used , Zuck ’ s going to have to placate those critics with some action .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t tweet indignantly about it and inadvertently feed a massive amount of media oxygen to this little brushfire , but you know him .
Probably a matter of time .

I saw this tweet last night and glossed over it on the assumption that it couldn’t be as bad as it looked and there must be some important context that was missing that would explain it.
🚨 Confirmed: Team Trump on Facebook posted for Trump supporters to stand against Antifa – and added a giant upside down red triangle. Just google that "upside down red triangle" and see what comes up first. pic.twitter.com/wAJLwcUMFd — Laura Walker ⚖🍸🇺🇸 🏴 (@LauraWalkerKC) June 18, 2020
There was context, it turns out. But not enough to stop Facebook from nuking it.
Facebook removed 88 ads Thursday posted by the accounts of President Donald Trump, the Trump campaign and Vice President Mike Pence that the social media giant said were “violating our policy against organized hate.” All of the identical ads featured an upside-down red triangle, a symbol used by the Nazi party in World War II to identify political dissidents in concentration camps. The ads caught the attention of some Twitter users Thursday who pointed out the symbol’s historical significance… “Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol,” [a Facebook] spokesperson wrote.
I have no difficulty believing that Trump had nothing to do with this and that he wouldn’t have recognized the red triangle even if he’d seen the ads before they went up. By his own admission, he didn’t know what Juneteenth was until a few days ago when a black Secret Service agent told him. The odds of him being able to identify lesser-known Nazi concentration camp badges for prisoners are slim to none.
Whether the staffer behind the ads was able to identify them is a separate question.
The President of the United States is campaigning for reelection using a Nazi concentration camp symbol. Nazis used the red triangle to mark political prisoners and people who rescued Jews. Trump & the RNC are using it to smear millions of protestors. Their masks are off. pic.twitter.com/UzmzDaRBup — Bend the Arc: Jewish Action (@jewishaction) June 18, 2020
A red triangle that marked 'political prisoners' was the most common category of prisoners registered at the German Nazi #Auschwitz camp. In August 1944, political prisoners constituted 95 percent of camp prisoners'. A letter inside the triangle could mark the nationality. pic.twitter.com/jBuNn0xmL1 — Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) June 18, 2020
Reporters started sniffing around and asked the Trump campaign where they got the idea that the inverted red triangle is a symbol for Antifa. It’s “widely used” by the group, the campaign replied:
This is an emoji. 🔻 It's also a symbol widely used by Antifa. It was used in an ad about Antifa. It is not in the ADL's Hate Symbols Database. pic.twitter.com/RSzvNT0SrC — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) June 18, 2020
But that image comes from a make-your-own-merchandise site posted by some rando in Spain. It apparently doesn’t exist elsewhere on the Internet, although there is a Dutch Antifa group that uses a red triangle in its logo. There *are* well-known symbols of Antifa out there — we’ve all seen the double-flag icon pictured here, for instance. How’d the campaign end up overlooking that one for a red triangle?
It’s true that the red triangle doesn’t appear in the ADL’s compendium of hate symbols, as the campaign notes, but there’s a reason for that:
Murtaugh, the Trump campaign spokesman, noted that the marking is not included in the Anti-Defamation League’s database of hate symbols. But the ADL’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, condemned its use in political combat as “offensive and deeply troubling.” “It is not difficult for one to criticize their political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery,” Greenblatt said in a statement. “We implore the Trump campaign to take greater caution and familiarize themselves with the historical context before doing so. Ignorance is not an excuse for appropriating hateful symbols.” Jake Hyman, an ADL spokesman, said the marking is not in the organization’s hate database because the inventory is not for “historical Nazi symbols” but rather for “symbols commonly used by modern extremists and white supremacists in the United States.”
The most charitable explanation for this episode is that some Trump staffer encountered the red triangle while reading sh*tposts about Antifa on a message board somewhere and stupidly assumed that it was Internet-created shorthand for the group. (The sh*tposters themselves would know the symbol’s pedigree, of course.) The campaign might not want to admit that, though, in which case they’d need an alternate explanation. Pity the poor aides who had to scramble this morning and find some image of Antifa with a red triangle in it online, however obscure, so that they could retcon a story about where they got the idea for it. They did the best with the material they had to work with.
As for why Facebook leaped to punish the Trump campaign after Mark Zuckerberg made a show recently of saying his platform wouldn’t ride herd on Trump content the way Twitter does, read this. Lots of Facebook employees are unhappy with that policy; at least one has quit over it. In an extreme case, like when Nazi imagery is being used, Zuck’s going to have to placate those critics with some action. That’s what happened today. Hopefully Trump won’t tweet indignantly about it and inadvertently feed a massive amount of media oxygen to this little brushfire, but you know him. Probably a matter of time.


hotair--2020-06-18--Satellite images suggest border clash in the Himalayas was prompted by Chinese activity

Monday night there was intense fighting between Chinese and Indian soldiers at a remote border in the Himalayas .
India reported that 20 soldiers including one officer had been killed .
China didn ’ t report numbers resulting from the skirmish but Indian reports claimed Chinese communication intercepts put the number of Chinese casualties at 43 .
No guns were used in the battle .
Instead , combatants fought with rocks and fists .
The Chinese reportedly used clubs made of wood and spiked with nails .
Many of the soldiers appear to have died after falling from cliffs into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a situation like this there was disagreement over what sequence of events led up to the bloodshed .
The NY Times and others reported that the conflict had been sparked by the recent construction of a new road to a remote air base by India .
However that road is entirely on the Indian side of the so-called Line of Actual Control ( LAC ) .
Today , Reuters reports that satellite images of the area suggest a more specific cause for the fighting .
In the days leading up to the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decades , China brought in pieces of machinery , cut a trail into a Himalayan mountainside and may have even dammed a river , satellite pictures suggest… The satellite pictures , taken by Earth-imaging company Planet Labs and obtained by Reuters , show signs of altering the landscape of the valley through widening tracks , moving earth and making river crossings , one expert said… “ Looking at it in Planet , it looks like China is constructing roads in the valley and possibly damming the river , ” Jeffrey Lewis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at California ’ s Middlebury Institute of International Studies .
“ There are a ton of vehicles on both sides ( of the LAC ) – although there appear to be vastly more on the Chinese side .
I count 30-40 Indian vehicles and well over 100 vehicles on the Chinese side.
” But it appears it wasn ’ t just the new Chinese construction in general that set off the battle , it was the fact that China set up a temporary outpost on the Indian side of the LAC after an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem arose when an Indian patrol visited the area near a ridge to verify a Chinese assertion that its troops had moved back from the LAC , the two government sources aware of the military situation said .
The Chinese troops had thinned out and left behind the two tents and small observation posts .
The Indian party demolished the towers and burnt the tents , the sources said .
The satellite images show possible debris from the observation posts on Tuesday morning on a ridge on India ’ s side of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the image taken a week earlier .
You can see the satellite images for yourself here .
Here ’ s a before and after comparison which appears to show debris from the observation post built by the Chinese .
When the Indian group burned the tents and observation post on their side of the LAC , a group of Chinese soldiers showed up and attacked them .
According to AFP that set up a series of escalating confrontations .
On Sunday of this week , the Chinese returned and threw stones at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting broke out on a ridge over the river .
Matters escalated rapidly and several Indian soldiers tumbled into the icy water , while an unarmed Indian patrol team led by Colonel Santosh Babu set out to parley with the Chinese .
But the Chinese refused to budge and attacked the Indians with boulders , rocks wrapped with barbed wire and clubs studded with nails , Indian reports said .
Colonel Babu was seriously injured .
He would later die .
Forty minutes later , the same unit led by a major returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time reportedly involving hundreds of soldiers and the Chinese outnumbering the Indians , raging until after midnight .
“ When they [ the Indian soldiers ] were encountered by the Chinese soldiers they were overwhelmed and many were pushed down a harsh rocky slope , ” one security source told AFP .
“ They came hurtling down like free falling objects.
” So it sounds like it was the Chinese who instigated this fight by building on the Indian side of the LAC .
Then when the Indian troops cleared the small outpost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throwing stones .
Naturally , China blames everything on India .
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said , “ The rights and wrongs of this incident are very clear .
The responsibility does not lie with China.
” Here ’ s a CBC report on the situation .
The Canadian analyst in this report argues that there ’ s no way Chinese troops took this action ( repeatedly attacking Indian troops ) without approval from superiors .
He says this was planned .

Monday night there was intense fighting between Chinese and Indian soldiers at a remote border in the Himalayas. India reported that 20 soldiers including one officer had been killed. China didn’t report numbers resulting from the skirmish but Indian reports claimed Chinese communication intercepts put the number of Chinese casualties at 43. No guns were used in the battle. Instead, combatants fought with rocks and fists. The Chinese reportedly used clubs made of wood and spiked with nails. Many of the soldiers appear to have died after falling from cliffs into a freezing river below.
Naturally in a situation like this there was disagreement over what sequence of events led up to the bloodshed. The NY Times and others reported that the conflict had been sparked by the recent construction of a new road to a remote air base by India. However that road is entirely on the Indian side of the so-called Line of Actual Control (LAC). Today, Reuters reports that satellite images of the area suggest a more specific cause for the fighting.
In the days leading up to the most violent border clash between India and China in decades, China brought in pieces of machinery, cut a trail into a Himalayan mountainside and may have even dammed a river, satellite pictures suggest… The satellite pictures, taken by Earth-imaging company Planet Labs and obtained by Reuters, show signs of altering the landscape of the valley through widening tracks, moving earth and making river crossings, one expert said… “Looking at it in Planet, it looks like China is constructing roads in the valley and possibly damming the river,” Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at California’s Middlebury Institute of International Studies. “There are a ton of vehicles on both sides (of the LAC) – although there appear to be vastly more on the Chinese side. I count 30-40 Indian vehicles and well over 100 vehicles on the Chinese side.”
But it appears it wasn’t just the new Chinese construction in general that set off the battle, it was the fact that China set up a temporary outpost on the Indian side of the LAC after an agreement to de-escalate the situation:
The problem arose when an Indian patrol visited the area near a ridge to verify a Chinese assertion that its troops had moved back from the LAC, the two government sources aware of the military situation said. The Chinese troops had thinned out and left behind the two tents and small observation posts. The Indian party demolished the towers and burnt the tents, the sources said. The satellite images show possible debris from the observation posts on Tuesday morning on a ridge on India’s side of the LAC. There was no such structure in the image taken a week earlier.
You can see the satellite images for yourself here. Here’s a before and after comparison which appears to show debris from the observation post built by the Chinese.
When the Indian group burned the tents and observation post on their side of the LAC, a group of Chinese soldiers showed up and attacked them. According to AFP that set up a series of escalating confrontations. On Sunday of this week, the Chinese returned and threw stones at the Indian troops. Then on Monday fighting broke out on a ridge over the river.
Matters escalated rapidly and several Indian soldiers tumbled into the icy water, while an unarmed Indian patrol team led by Colonel Santosh Babu set out to parley with the Chinese. But the Chinese refused to budge and attacked the Indians with boulders, rocks wrapped with barbed wire and clubs studded with nails, Indian reports said. Colonel Babu was seriously injured. He would later die. Forty minutes later, the same unit led by a major returned and further fighting broke out, this time reportedly involving hundreds of soldiers and the Chinese outnumbering the Indians, raging until after midnight. “When they [the Indian soldiers] were encountered by the Chinese soldiers they were overwhelmed and many were pushed down a harsh rocky slope,” one security source told AFP. “They came hurtling down like free falling objects.”
So it sounds like it was the Chinese who instigated this fight by building on the Indian side of the LAC. Then when the Indian troops cleared the small outpost, the Chinese escalated the conflict by throwing stones. Naturally, China blames everything on India. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said, “The rights and wrongs of this incident are very clear. The responsibility does not lie with China.”
Here’s a CBC report on the situation. The Canadian analyst in this report argues that there’s no way Chinese troops took this action (repeatedly attacking Indian troops) without approval from superiors. He says this was planned.


hotair--2020-06-18--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: DACA-rama, Bolton drama, Portland trauma, media doxxing diorama, econom

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: DACA-rama, Bolton drama, Portland trauma, media doxxing diorama, economic comma, 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 : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
What won ’ t we talk about today ?
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tap , from the WaPo ’ s doxxing of a rando , SCOTUS ’ DACA decision , the John Bolton feud with Donald Trump , Portland ’ s tough stance on anarchy … and we only have an hour !
• Are we focusing on the wrong knee ?
Peter Grandich returns to discuss the latest on the economy , but we ’ ll also talk about the social unrest , the Gospel , and why we might be lost at the moment but can find our way back .
The Ed Morrissey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 winning after 2016 ?
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:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. What won’t we talk about today? We’ve got all sorts of topics on tap, from the WaPo’s doxxing of a rando, SCOTUS’ DACA decision, the John Bolton feud with Donald Trump, Portland’s tough stance on anarchy … and we only have an hour!
Are we focusing on the wrong knee? Peter Grandich returns to discuss the latest on the economy, but we’ll also talk about the social unrest, the Gospel, and why we might be lost at the moment but can find our way back.
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 winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-06-18--Great moment for American media: WaPo doxxes woman no one's heard of, gets her fired for ... 2018 Ha

Great moment for American media: WaPo doxxes woman no one's heard of, gets her fired for ... 2018 Halloween costume

In some future journalism school class , perhaps someone will explain what national importance Tom Toles ’ Halloween parties have .
It must have some , because the Washington Post published an investigative report into their cartoonist ’ s 2018 event that runs nearly three thousand words .
Did someone get assassinated at it ?
In a way , yes — and the assassin is the Washington Post itself .
For some reason , a friend of Toles showed up to his Halloween party in blackface , a very-poor-taste attempt to satirize Megan Kelly ’ s brief defense of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and essentially scolded her out of the party .
And who is this woman , whose racial peccadillo must now be told to the world twenty months later ?
Sue Schaefer , that ’ s who .
Sue … Schaefer ?
Who ’ s that ?
A high-ranking MAGA-cheering political appointee high up in the Trump administration ?
The GOP ’ s next Senate candidate in Alabama ?
Donald Trump ’ s niece ?
Don ’ t bother Googling the name .
She ’ s actually a Trump-opposing rando who just happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schaefer tried apologizing to Toles the next day , and wishes that the women she offended — who recently e-mailed Toles — would allow her to apologize to them directly .
She spent some time in therapy after her ( deserved ) humiliation at the party , and admits she made a big mistake in her choice of costume .
Oh , and Schaefer is one other thing too : she ’ s now unemployed , thanks to this exposé published by the Post , fired for her bungled attempt to satirize Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would the Washington Post go this far to doxx a rando ?
In part , it looks like an attempt to humiliate Toles , who tried at first to prevent Schaefer from this doxxing .
According to the story — which I will not directly link or excerpt — one of the offended guests very recently demanded to know her name and sent Toles a picture of the woman , which the Post helpfully published as part of the story .
Toles professed not to recognize her , but then brought the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He would have been better off just passing Schaefer ’ s name to the inquisitor .
In larger part , though , the intent seems to be the same kind of woke corporate virtue signaling that has become its own epidemic in 2020 .
Schaefer ’ s value to the Post is as a sacrificial goat to make themselves look Very Concerned and also Highly Offended over some rando ’ s choice of Halloween costume in 2018 .
Look how sophisticated and woke we are , the piece practically screams from every one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says it “ seems disproportionate , ” which is perhaps the understatement of the year : Interestingly , Toles apparently still has a job .
I wonder why ?
Everyone involved in writing and publishing this story should be ashamed of themselves , from Jeff Bezos right down to the paperboy .
Humiliating a private person over something like a Halloween costume from two years ago has zero “ news ” value , but was concocted only to preen about the paper ’ s own moral pretensions .
The Washington Post has fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a very long time to remove the stains from its reputation as a result .

In some future journalism school class, perhaps someone will explain what national importance Tom Toles’ Halloween parties have. It must have some, because the Washington Post published an investigative report into their cartoonist’s 2018 event that runs nearly three thousand words. Did someone get assassinated at it? In a way, yes — and the assassin is the Washington Post itself.
For some reason, a friend of Toles showed up to his Halloween party in blackface, a very-poor-taste attempt to satirize Megan Kelly’s brief defense of the practice. Other attendees confronted the woman and essentially scolded her out of the party. And who is this woman, whose racial peccadillo must now be told to the world twenty months later? Sue Schaefer, that’s who.
Sue … Schaefer? Who’s that? A high-ranking MAGA-cheering political appointee high up in the Trump administration? The GOP’s next Senate candidate in Alabama? Donald Trump’s niece?
Don’t bother Googling the name. She’s actually a Trump-opposing rando who just happens to be one of Toles’ friends. Schaefer tried apologizing to Toles the next day, and wishes that the women she offended — who recently e-mailed Toles — would allow her to apologize to them directly. She spent some time in therapy after her (deserved) humiliation at the party, and admits she made a big mistake in her choice of costume. Oh, and Schaefer is one other thing too: she’s now unemployed, thanks to this exposé published by the Post, fired for her bungled attempt to satirize Kelly from almost two years ago.
Why would the Washington Post go this far to doxx a rando? In part, it looks like an attempt to humiliate Toles, who tried at first to prevent Schaefer from this doxxing. According to the story — which I will not directly link or excerpt — one of the offended guests very recently demanded to know her name and sent Toles a picture of the woman, which the Post helpfully published as part of the story. Toles professed not to recognize her, but then brought the issue to the attention of the paper. He would have been better off just passing Schaefer’s name to the inquisitor.
In larger part, though, the intent seems to be the same kind of woke corporate virtue signaling that has become its own epidemic in 2020. Schaefer’s value to the Post is as a sacrificial goat to make themselves look Very Concerned and also Highly Offended over some rando’s choice of Halloween costume in 2018. Look how sophisticated and woke we are, the piece practically screams from every one of its 2,960 words.
Jonathan Chait says it “seems disproportionate,” which is perhaps the understatement of the year:
Not-famous woman wore a tasteless Halloween costume in 2018 trying to make fun of Megyn Kelly. 1) She apologizes the next day
2) Cries in shame, goes in therapy
3) Washington Post story runs 3,000 word reconstruction of event
4) She is fired from job Seems disproportionate? https://t.co/GUFvU60unu — Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) June 18, 2020
Interestingly, Toles apparently still has a job. I wonder why?
Everyone involved in writing and publishing this story should be ashamed of themselves, from Jeff Bezos right down to the paperboy. Humiliating a private person over something like a Halloween costume from two years ago has zero “news” value, but was concocted only to preen about the paper’s own moral pretensions. The Washington Post has fully descended into muckery, and it will take a very long time to remove the stains from its reputation as a result.


hotair--2020-06-18--A Vermont high school principal was placed on leave after criticizing Black Lives Matter on Facebook

Another example of the ongoing cancel culture wave , this time in Vermont .
A high school principal named Tiffany Riley posted some statements on Facebook which offered support for the idea that black lives matter but questioned the truthfulness of some claims made by those associated with the group : I firmly believe that Black Lives Matter , but I DO NOT agree with the coercive measures taken to get to this point across ; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point .
While I want to get behind BLM , I do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have to choose black race over human race .
While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives , what about our fellow law enforcement ?
What about all others who advocate for and demand equity for all ?
Just because I don ’ t walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I am a racist .
I don ’ t know which “ falsified ” claims Riley is talking about but there are certainly many to choose from .
For instance , many recent protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , don ’ t shoot ” despite the fact that the incident from which this slogan arose never happened .
In any case , Riley ’ s suggestion that you can support the idea that black lives matter and still have doubts about the organization and its commitment to the truth was too much for the local school board which held and emergency meeting and placed her on administrative leave .
The board put out a statement which reads : The ignorance , prejudice , and lack of judgement in these statements are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a school board and district .
However , these statements were not alone .
They were followed later by a follow up Facebook post , which acknowledged no culpability , expressed no specific contrition or empathy , and showed no humility .
Because of this glaring miscomprehension of the situation , we feel unanimously that Ms. Riley ’ s continued role as our school leader damages the school and its students .
Notice that the board said her statement was prejudiced .
In context that ’ s tantamount to calling her a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prejudice against a specific race .
Ours is not a racially diverse school , so it is easy to forget or to be unconscious to the racial inequities that exist in the form of White Privilege in our community and our state .
If we are not acknowledging White Advantage and working to remove it , we are not attempting to provide our minority students an equal opportunity for education .
If we are not teaching all our students that bias exists in our community and working to remove it , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paragraph really has some strong substitute-religion overtones .
White Privilege in this case could be a substitute for original sin .
Either you confess that sin and work to eradicate it or you are an unrepentant sinner and complicit in sin .
Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works ?
So much for the separation of church and state .
The statement continues : We have expectations of the leaders in our schools – that they will strive to embody education as a living , fluid concept , one that encompasses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal partners .
We speak of creating lifelong learners , but as leaders , we must also continually listen and learn .
There are expectations of trust , knowledge , honesty , and thought that are not present in everyday conversation .
It is our responsibility to be aware of that , especially in our public statements .
They don ’ t want someone who embodies education as a fluid concept .
They want someone who will toe the line and only offer praise for a group they have decided should receive no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s a good principal but we ’ re firing her because she ’ s not orthodox enough .
That ’ s really the bottom line here .
The sinner needs to be punished to set an example for others .
Question Black Lives Matter ( not the idea but the group ) and your career will be ended .
Jonathan Turley pointed out the outcome of this is a clear chilling of free speech : As always , I come to these issues from a free perspective .
I am less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than I am in the refusal to allow one side to be stated without punitive measures .
I would take ( and have taken ) the same position if the view on BLM were reversed .
I fail to see what educators can not express their views in favor of or against BLM in participating in one of the most important periods of debate in our history .
The message to educators is that you must not criticize BLM in your private life if you want to keep your job .
The board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Riley might not be a racist and still question BLM , which has been involved in controversies over academic freedom and free speech on campuses .
We have never had any organization treated as so inviolate that it can not be challenged by anyone in their private or personal discourse .
Teachers in Chicago can go to Venezuela to support a dictator who has arrested and murdered scores of people , including suppressing free speech and the free press .
They were not punished or declared “ tone deaf.
” Boards like Mount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation of speech of teachers in the private lives of teachers .
They will be applauded for such action against free speech as people ignore the implications of such punitive measures .
This is not about BLM .
It is about free speech .
Of course , the Board is not being “ tone deaf.
” Mount Ascutney School Board has guaranteed that there will be no sound at all , at least no dissenting voices heard among its teachers .

Another example of the ongoing cancel culture wave, this time in Vermont. A high school principal named Tiffany Riley posted some statements on Facebook which offered support for the idea that black lives matter but questioned the truthfulness of some claims made by those associated with the group:
I firmly believe that Black Lives Matter, but I DO NOT agree with the coercive measures taken to get to this point across; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point. While I want to get behind BLM, I do not think people should be made to feel they have to choose black race over human race. While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law enforcement? What about all others who advocate for and demand equity for all? Just because I don’t walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I am a racist.
I don’t know which “falsified” claims Riley is talking about but there are certainly many to choose from. For instance, many recent protests have featured people chanting “hands up, don’t shoot” despite the fact that the incident from which this slogan arose never happened.
In any case, Riley’s suggestion that you can support the idea that black lives matter and still have doubts about the organization and its commitment to the truth was too much for the local school board which held and emergency meeting and placed her on administrative leave. The board put out a statement which reads:
The ignorance, prejudice, and lack of judgement in these statements are utterly contrary to the values we espouse as a school board and district. However, these statements were not alone. They were followed later by a follow up Facebook post, which acknowledged no culpability, expressed no specific contrition or empathy, and showed no humility. Because of this glaring miscomprehension of the situation, we feel unanimously that Ms. Riley’s continued role as our school leader damages the school and its students.
Notice that the board said her statement was prejudiced. In context that’s tantamount to calling her a racist since she’s being accused of prejudice against a specific race.
Ours is not a racially diverse school, so it is easy to forget or to be unconscious to the racial inequities that exist in the form of White Privilege in our community and our state. If we are not acknowledging White Advantage and working to remove it, we are not attempting to provide our minority students an equal opportunity for education. If we are not teaching all our students that bias exists in our community and working to remove it, we are complicit in its perpetuation.
This paragraph really has some strong substitute-religion overtones. White Privilege in this case could be a substitute for original sin. Either you confess that sin and work to eradicate it or you are an unrepentant sinner and complicit in sin. Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works? So much for the separation of church and state. The statement continues:
We have expectations of the leaders in our schools – that they will strive to embody education as a living, fluid concept, one that encompasses listening, learning, and teaching as equal partners. We speak of creating lifelong learners, but as leaders, we must also continually listen and learn. There are expectations of trust, knowledge, honesty, and thought that are not present in everyday conversation. It is our responsibility to be aware of that, especially in our public statements.
They don’t want someone who embodies education as a fluid concept. They want someone who will toe the line and only offer praise for a group they have decided should receive no criticism whatsoever. The statement concludes:
Although we recognize Ms. Riley’s meaningful and positive impact on Windsor School, we have voted unanimously to place Ms. Riley on paid leave, effective immediately, and we are resolved that she will no longer lead our school.
She’s a good principal but we’re firing her because she’s not orthodox enough. That’s really the bottom line here. The sinner needs to be punished to set an example for others. Question Black Lives Matter (not the idea but the group) and your career will be ended.
Jonathan Turley pointed out the outcome of this is a clear chilling of free speech:
As always, I come to these issues from a free perspective. I am less concerned with the merits of the position than I am in the refusal to allow one side to be stated without punitive measures. I would take (and have taken) the same position if the view on BLM were reversed. I fail to see what educators cannot express their views in favor of or against BLM in participating in one of the most important periods of debate in our history. The message to educators is that you must not criticize BLM in your private life if you want to keep your job. The board does not even entertain the possibility that Riley might not be a racist and still question BLM, which has been involved in controversies over academic freedom and free speech on campuses. We have never had any organization treated as so inviolate that it cannot be challenged by anyone in their private or personal discourse. Teachers in Chicago can go to Venezuela to support a dictator who has arrested and murdered scores of people, including suppressing free speech and the free press. They were not punished or declared “tone deaf.” Boards like Mount Ascutney School Board engage in open content-based regulation of speech of teachers in the private lives of teachers. They will be applauded for such action against free speech as people ignore the implications of such punitive measures. This is not about BLM. It is about free speech. Of course, the Board is not being “tone deaf.” Mount Ascutney School Board has guaranteed that there will be no sound at all, at least no dissenting voices heard among its teachers.
Here’s a local news report on the situation.


hotair--2020-06-18--Portland mayor orders end to "autonomous zone," wonders what Seattle's thinking

This looked ominous , at least at first .
Some interpreted it as a retreat in the face of activists in Portland , Oregon that have been demonstrating against police for the last couple of weeks : Closed ?
As in … surrendered , a la Seattle ’ s CHAZ ?
Nope ; the Portland PD ’ s shelter in place demand wasn ’ t actually a retreat .
It was an attempt to keep everyone out so that they could eject anarchists who attempted their version of a CHAZ in front of the mayor ’ s residence .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprisingly short-lived .
One woman got arrested for refusing to leave after police declared it a “ civil disturbance , ” but everyone else skedaddled : Police moved in on Thursday morning to break up a so-called “ autonomous zone ” in the Pearl District after protesters set-up camp overnight at Northwest 10th and Glisan .
Around 5:30 , police declared a civil disturbance and unlawful assembly .
The area of NW 11th to Park Avenue between Irving and Everett Street was closed with residents told to shelter inside .
Service on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This area is believed to be outside the residence of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler .
Protesters are calling for him to resign after Wednesday ’ s budget vote to strip the police bureau of $ 15 Million in funding .
Wheeler came out afterward to clean up the neighborhood , and declared himself “ not impressed ” with Seattle .
“ Let me be unequivocally clear , ” Wheeler told reporters about so-called autonomous zones , “ I absolutely do not support that ” : Yikes , Seattle .
When you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intestinal fortitude on law and order by Portlandia … Remarkably , Wheeler — not exactly a rock-ribbed conservative — cut through all of the media narrative and hero-worship surrounding the CHAZ .
He didn ’ t wax poetic about a “ summer of love ” or volunteer “ sentinels , ” but instead described it in terms of an armed insurrection .
And in fact , Wheeler is absolutely correct in both this statement and in the leadership shown this morning .
The time to stop anarchists from seizing territory is immediately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law rather than entering hostage negotiations .
Either we have the rule of law , or we have the rule of personal force .
Wheeler chose wisely .
The leadership of Seattle and the state of Washington have chosen poorly — and so have the voters who elected them .
Perhaps they might take a look around and choose more wisely themselves in the future .

This looked ominous, at least at first. Some interpreted it as a retreat in the face of activists in Portland, Oregon that have been demonstrating against police for the last couple of weeks:
The area of NW 11th east to NW Park Avenue and NW Irving south to NW Everett Street is closed. — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) June 18, 2020
Closed? As in … surrendered, a la Seattle’s CHAZ? Nope; the Portland PD’s shelter in place demand wasn’t actually a retreat. It was an attempt to keep everyone out so that they could eject anarchists who attempted their version of a CHAZ in front of the mayor’s residence.
https://twitter.com/KGWphotog/status/1273590630258601984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1273590630258601984%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kxl.com%2Fpolice-break-up-autonomous-zone-in-nw-portland%2F
The Portland Autonomous Zone turned out to be surprisingly short-lived. One woman got arrested for refusing to leave after police declared it a “civil disturbance,” but everyone else skedaddled:
Police moved in on Thursday morning to break up a so-called “autonomous zone” in the Pearl District after protesters set-up camp overnight at Northwest 10th and Glisan. Around 5:30, police declared a civil disturbance and unlawful assembly. The area of NW 11th to Park Avenue between Irving and Everett Street was closed with residents told to shelter inside. Service on the Portland Streetcar was also affected. … This area is believed to be outside the residence of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler. Protesters are calling for him to resign after Wednesday’s budget vote to strip the police bureau of $15 Million in funding.
Wheeler came out afterward to clean up the neighborhood, and declared himself “not impressed” with Seattle. “Let me be unequivocally clear,” Wheeler told reporters about so-called autonomous zones, “I absolutely do not support that”:
Yikes, Seattle. When you’re getting chewed out for a lack of intestinal fortitude on law and order by Portlandia … Remarkably, Wheeler — not exactly a rock-ribbed conservative — cut through all of the media narrative and hero-worship surrounding the CHAZ. He didn’t wax poetic about a “summer of love” or volunteer “sentinels,” but instead described it in terms of an armed insurrection.
And in fact, Wheeler is absolutely correct in both this statement and in the leadership shown this morning. The time to stop anarchists from seizing territory is immediately, and the method is to enforce the law rather than entering hostage negotiations. Either we have the rule of law, or we have the rule of personal force. Wheeler chose wisely. The leadership of Seattle and the state of Washington have chosen poorly — and so have the voters who elected them. Perhaps they might take a look around and choose more wisely themselves in the future.


hotair--2020-06-18--The Cream of Wheat guy is (almost) canceled

I feel like the sheer dreariness of the product might tamp down the righty backlash to this particular example of a-wokening .
Aunt Jemima , Mrs. Butterworth , Uncle Ben ’ s — all pleasurable eating experiences , and so Americans naturally cling to the mascots .
Cream of Wheat , though ?
Go ahead and cancel this guy .
To hell with him for hawking such a bland product .
Imagine being so presumptuous as to wear a chef ’ s hat when your signature dish is Cream of Wheat .
He ’ s not canceled yet , says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that makes CoW , but it ’ s a fait accompli .
B & G Foods , Inc. ( NYSE : BGS ) today announced that we are initiating an immediate review of the Cream of Wheat brand packaging .
We understand there are concerns regarding the Chef image , and we are committed to evaluating our packaging and will proactively take steps to ensure that we and our brands do not inadvertently contribute to systemic racism .
B & G Foods unequivocally stands against prejudice and injustice of any kind .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that being a chef is perfectly dignified .
Granted , the logo imagery dates to the late 19th century , a time when corporate America wasn ’ t known for recognizing the dignity of African-Americans , but just because the chef ’ s hat at the time denoted servant status doesn ’ t mean it needs to denote that today .
Then I looked more closely at the logo and realized that he ’ s still wearing a bowtie , which , yeah , is a little more evocative of servants than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too . )
And then I read this : “ The character was named ‘ Rastus , ’ a pejorative term for black men , and he was once depicted as a barely literate cook who did not know what vitamins were.
” He was indeed , it turns out .
This site has a photo of a Cream of Wheat ad from 1921 and it ’ s , uh … hoo boy .
It ’ s something .
And it does feature the name “ Rastus , ” which is also something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s probably the single most racist character to get canceled this week .
I assume all of these brands are going to dispense with mascots altogether rather than “ update ” their imagery but some sort of amends will need to be made to signal their remorse at having stuck with such “ problematic ” logos for so long .
There ’ s an obvious choice for a new corporate spokesman , one who ’ s apt to be a very hot commodity in American marketing and beyond this year , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sins of racism .
They need to sign Kaepernick .
He ’ s already seizing new opportunities for activism , in fact : We know he ’ s open to corporate sponsorship so long as it serves the cause of social justice .
Imagine an ad where the anthem plays , Old Glory flies , Kaepernick appears onscreen and takes a knee , and then he reaches down for a steaming bowl of Cream of Wheat and digs in .
Poignant .
Socially conscious .
Tasty .
Well , as tasty as Cream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : When does this sudden surge of canceling controversial mascots jump from African-American imagery to all racial imagery ?
Chiquita Banana and the Washington Redskins are hanging in there for now , but for how long ?

I feel like the sheer dreariness of the product might tamp down the righty backlash to this particular example of a-wokening. Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Butterworth, Uncle Ben’s — all pleasurable eating experiences, and so Americans naturally cling to the mascots.
Cream of Wheat, though? Go ahead and cancel this guy. To hell with him for hawking such a bland product.
Imagine being so presumptuous as to wear a chef’s hat when your signature dish is Cream of Wheat.
He’s not canceled yet, says B&G Foods, the company that makes CoW, but it’s a fait accompli.
B&G Foods, Inc. (NYSE:BGS) today announced that we are initiating an immediate review of the Cream of Wheat brand packaging. We understand there are concerns regarding the Chef image, and we are committed to evaluating our packaging and will proactively take steps to ensure that we and our brands do not inadvertently contribute to systemic racism. B&G Foods unequivocally stands against prejudice and injustice of any kind.
My first thought when I heard this news was that being a chef is perfectly dignified. Granted, the logo imagery dates to the late 19th century, a time when corporate America wasn’t known for recognizing the dignity of African-Americans, but just because the chef’s hat at the time denoted servant status doesn’t mean it needs to denote that today.
Then I looked more closely at the logo and realized that he’s still wearing a bowtie, which, yeah, is a little more evocative of servants than chefs. (Uncle Ben wears one too.) And then I read this: “The character was named ‘Rastus,’ a pejorative term for black men, and he was once depicted as a barely literate cook who did not know what vitamins were.”
He was indeed, it turns out. This site has a photo of a Cream of Wheat ad from 1921 and it’s, uh … hoo boy. It’s something. And it does feature the name “Rastus,” which is also something. And not something good.
He’s probably the single most racist character to get canceled this week.
I assume all of these brands are going to dispense with mascots altogether rather than “update” their imagery but some sort of amends will need to be made to signal their remorse at having stuck with such “problematic” logos for so long. There’s an obvious choice for a new corporate spokesman, one who’s apt to be a very hot commodity in American marketing and beyond this year, whose endorsement might singlehandedly provide absolution for past sins of racism. They need to sign Kaepernick.
He’s already seizing new opportunities for activism, in fact:
We’re excited to announce our founder, @kaepernick7, will be the newest Board Member @medium. In addition to this, #KaepernickPublishing partners with Medium to further our mission uplifting voices of our communities. pic.twitter.com/FQYYNdTQcP — Kaepernick Publishing (@KaepernickPub) June 18, 2020
We know he’s open to corporate sponsorship so long as it serves the cause of social justice. Imagine an ad where the anthem plays, Old Glory flies, Kaepernick appears onscreen and takes a knee, and then he reaches down for a steaming bowl of Cream of Wheat and digs in.
Poignant. Socially conscious. Tasty. Well, as tasty as Cream of Wheat can be.
Exit question: When does this sudden surge of canceling controversial mascots jump from African-American imagery to all racial imagery? Chiquita Banana and the Washington Redskins are hanging in there for now, but for how long?


hotair--2020-06-18--ProPublica: Gov. Cuomo's order on nursing homes created a disaster

We ’ ve touched on this several times before .
Back in late April the NY Times reported that New York state had issued a new rule mandating that nursing homes take COVID-19 patients back after hospitals had diagnosed and cared for them .
That decision , which was prompted by a desire to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed , turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes the state made .
This week , ProPublica published a story looking at the results of the decision .
Not only did New York require nursing homes take patients back from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not allowed to test those returning to see if they still had the virus .
If a hospital determined a patient who needed nursing home care was medically stable , the home had to accept them , even if they had been treated for COVID-19 .
Moreover , the nursing home could not test any such prospective residents — those treated for COVID-19 or those hospitalized for other reasons — to see if they were newly infected or perhaps still contagious despite their treatment .
It was all laid out in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York was the only state in the nation that barred testing of those being placed or returning to nursing homes .
In the weeks that followed the March 25 order , COVID-19 tore through New York state ’ s nursing facilities , killing more than 6,000 people — about 6 % of its more than 100,000 nursing home residents .
In all , as many as 4,500 COVID-19 infected patients were sent to nursing homes across the state , according to a count conducted by The Associated Press… States that issued orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grim outcomes .
Michigan lost 5 % of roughly 38,000 nursing home residents to COVID-19 since the outbreak began .
New Jersey lost 12 % of its more than 43,000 residents .
In Florida , where such transfers were barred , just 1.6 % of 73,000 nursing home residents died of the virus .
California , after initially moving toward a policy like New York ’ s , quickly revised it .
So far , it has lost 2 % of its 103,000 nursing home residents .
Much of the story focuses on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 people would eventually die from the virus , most after accepting COVID patients from hospitals .
According to one nurse who complained about the situation , workers had little or no protective gear and were asked to come in and work even when they were supposed to be under quarantine .
After several complaints about how things were being run , she was fired and told she was “ anti-management.
” County executive Steve McLaughlin was in charge of a county-run nursing home in the same area as Diamond Hill .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order and didn ’ t admit any COVID patients to his facility .
That county-run facility didn ’ t have a single death from the virus .
McLaughlin said the deaths at Diamond Hill were , “ uncalled for , unnecessary , should never have occurred , and wouldn ’ t have but for a tragically misguided order from the state.
” Cuomo was asked last month who was responsible for the high death toll in nursing homes .
Here was his answer ( see the video below ) : We lost 139 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable for those 139 deaths ?
Well , how do we get justice for those families who had 139 deaths ?
What is justice ?
Who can we prosecute for those deaths ?
Nobody .
Nobody .
Mother nature .
God .
Where did this virus come from ?
People are going to die by this virus .
That is the truth .
Best hospital system on the globe , I believe we have .
Best doctors , best nurses who have responded like heroes , every medication , ventilators , the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out so we always had available beds .
Nobody was deprived of a bed or medical coverage in any way .
And still people died .
Still , people died .
Older people , vulnerable people are going to die from this virus .
That is going to happen despite whatever you do .
Because with all our progress as a society , we can ’ t keep everyone alive .
Despite what everything you do and older people are more vulnerable .
And that is a fact .
And that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ randomness to this virus that is inexplicable .
Why do people die ?
…Who ’ s accountable ?
You can have a situating where everyone did the right thing and everyone tried their best and people still died .
But Columbia University epidemiologist Charles Branas had a different take .
He told ProPublica , “ If you introduce 4,500 people sick with a potentially lethal disease into a vulnerable and notoriously imperfectly monitored population , people are apt to die .
”

We’ve touched on this several times before. Back in late April the NY Times reported that New York state had issued a new rule mandating that nursing homes take COVID-19 patients back after hospitals had diagnosed and cared for them. That decision, which was prompted by a desire to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes the state made.
This week, ProPublica published a story looking at the results of the decision. Not only did New York require nursing homes take patients back from hospitals it also specified that the homes were not allowed to test those returning to see if they still had the virus.
If a hospital determined a patient who needed nursing home care was medically stable, the home had to accept them, even if they had been treated for COVID-19. Moreover, the nursing home could not test any such prospective residents — those treated for COVID-19 or those hospitalized for other reasons — to see if they were newly infected or perhaps still contagious despite their treatment. It was all laid out in a formal order, effective March 25. New York was the only state in the nation that barred testing of those being placed or returning to nursing homes. In the weeks that followed the March 25 order, COVID-19 tore through New York state’s nursing facilities, killing more than 6,000 people — about 6% of its more than 100,000 nursing home residents. In all, as many as 4,500 COVID-19 infected patients were sent to nursing homes across the state, according to a count conducted by The Associated Press… States that issued orders similar to Cuomo’s recorded comparably grim outcomes. Michigan lost 5% of roughly 38,000 nursing home residents to COVID-19 since the outbreak began. New Jersey lost 12% of its more than 43,000 residents. In Florida, where such transfers were barred, just 1.6% of 73,000 nursing home residents died of the virus. California, after initially moving toward a policy like New York’s, quickly revised it. So far, it has lost 2% of its 103,000 nursing home residents.
Much of the story focuses on one nursing home called Diamond Hill where 18 people would eventually die from the virus, most after accepting COVID patients from hospitals. According to one nurse who complained about the situation, workers had little or no protective gear and were asked to come in and work even when they were supposed to be under quarantine. After several complaints about how things were being run, she was fired and told she was “anti-management.”
County executive Steve McLaughlin was in charge of a county-run nursing home in the same area as Diamond Hill. He refused to obey the state’s order and didn’t admit any COVID patients to his facility. That county-run facility didn’t have a single death from the virus. McLaughlin said the deaths at Diamond Hill were, “uncalled for, unnecessary, should never have occurred, and wouldn’t have but for a tragically misguided order from the state.”
Cuomo was asked last month who was responsible for the high death toll in nursing homes. Here was his answer (see the video below):
We lost 139 people yesterday in hospitals. Who is accountable for those 139 deaths? Well, how do we get justice for those families who had 139 deaths? What is justice? Who can we prosecute for those deaths? Nobody. Nobody. Mother nature. God. Where did this virus come from? People are going to die by this virus. That is the truth. Best hospital system on the globe, I believe we have. Best doctors, best nurses who have responded like heroes, every medication, ventilators, the health system wants for nothing. We worked it out so we always had available beds. Nobody was deprived of a bed or medical coverage in any way. And still people died. Still, people died. Older people, vulnerable people are going to die from this virus. That is going to happen despite whatever you do. Because with all our progress as a society, we can’t keep everyone alive. Despite what everything you do and older people are more vulnerable. And that is a fact. And that is not going to change…There’s a randomness to this virus that is inexplicable. Why do people die?…Who’s accountable? You can have a situating where everyone did the right thing and everyone tried their best and people still died.
But Columbia University epidemiologist Charles Branas had a different take. He told ProPublica, “If you introduce 4,500 people sick with a potentially lethal disease into a vulnerable and notoriously imperfectly monitored population, people are apt to die.”


hotair--2020-06-18--Showtime sets date for miniseries based on Comey's book ... after the election

A multi-million dollar budget adaptation of James Comey ’ s book , “ A Higher Loyalty ” , for Showtime has been scheduled for a late November premiere .
Speculation has begun over whether or not the Trump administration played a hand in the post-election release date .
To say the timing of the release of the two-part miniseries is odd would be an understatement .
This type of miniseries is typically meant to be a fly in the ointment for a political campaign , especially , in this case , the re-election campaign of President Trump .
Traditional thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television programming would be used at the end of the campaign season , just before election day , to ding Trump .
It is especially odd , given the fact that actor Jeff Daniels made special scheduling accommodations after he left his run on Broadway in To Kill a Mockingbird in order to be ready for a pre-election release .
His intention is to be a part of the “ national conversation ” ahead of the election .
As you may know , Daniels is publicly on record as anti-Trump .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last July , Daniels said “ America needs to do better ” than Trump ’ s enforcement of immigration laws at the southern border and “ we ( Democrats ) need somebody that can take this guy on , that can punch him in the face.
” Usually , Daniels ’ irrational rants against Trump and Trump supporters revolve around charges of racism .
Apparently memorizing lines from To Kill a Mockingbird makes an actor an expert on race relations in America , or something .
Jeff Daniels plays the role of Comey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the miniseries must be a huge disappointment for both Daniels and Comey .
Think of all the joint appearances they could make in interviews to publicize the miniseries and rant against Trump to late-night show hosts and other liberal-friendly outlets like The View .
I bet Chris Wallace or Dana Perino would be happy for the two to be booked on their shows if the pair expanded their horizons enough to appear on Fox News Channel .
Speculation is that President Trump used his “ long mutual admiration ” with CBS Viacom chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the series , adapted for the screen . )
This speculation is especially timely , given Trump ’ s habit of throwing up blockades against authors he thinks are unfairly portraying him – case in point this week is the lawsuit against John Bolton revolving around the release of his new memoir .
He ’ s a fighter .
Brendan Gleeson plays President Trump .
He is an award-winning Irish actor and film director .
I admit I had to look him up because the name wasn ’ t registering with me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Potter films , and he had supporting roles in Braveheart , Michael Collins , Gangs of New York , and Cold Mountain , among others .
According to Showtime , the miniseries isn ’ t a biopic .
Instead , it focuses on the story of the relationship between Trump and Comey .
According to Showtime , the series is an immersive , behind-the-headlines account of the historically turbulent events surrounding the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath , which divided a nation .
It ’ s not a biopic , but is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Comey and Trump , whose strikingly different personalities , ethics and loyalties put them on a collision course .
It ’ s described as an insider ’ s journey down the corridors of power , where decision-makers struggle to apply old norms to a dramatic new paradigm in the face of Russia ’ s deep and unprecedented penetration into American politics , with our nation ’ s rule of law hanging in the balance .
Each character ’ s actions in these historic months made the careers of some , destroyed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incendiary political landscape we live in today .
Part one of the series examines the earliest days of the Russia investigation , the FBI ’ s investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s emails and their impact on Election Night 2016 , when Donald Trump stunned the world and was elected president .
Part two is a virtual day-by-day account of the tempestuous relationship between Comey and Trump and the intense and chaotic first months of the Trump presidency – where allies became enemies , enemies became friends and truth depended on what side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cash in on his taxpayer-supported career in government service .
His vendetta against Trump will likely continue if Trump wins re-election .
I can just see the soulful tweets from Comey ’ s Twitter account now , filled with fuzzy deep thoughts .
Trump ’ s re-election will be worth it , besides the fact that voters must spar us from four years of Joe Biden , to see more epic meltdowns on Election Night 2020 from our intellectual betters in the entertainment industry .

A multi-million dollar budget adaptation of James Comey’s book, “A Higher Loyalty”, for Showtime has been scheduled for a late November premiere. Speculation has begun over whether or not the Trump administration played a hand in the post-election release date.
To say the timing of the release of the two-part miniseries is odd would be an understatement. This type of miniseries is typically meant to be a fly in the ointment for a political campaign, especially, in this case, the re-election campaign of President Trump. Traditional thought would dictate that this type of cable television programming would be used at the end of the campaign season, just before election day, to ding Trump. It is especially odd, given the fact that actor Jeff Daniels made special scheduling accommodations after he left his run on Broadway in To Kill a Mockingbird in order to be ready for a pre-election release. His intention is to be a part of the “national conversation” ahead of the election. As you may know, Daniels is publicly on record as anti-Trump. For example, during an interview with Stephen Colbert last July, Daniels said “America needs to do better” than Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws at the southern border and “we (Democrats) need somebody that can take this guy on, that can punch him in the face.” Usually, Daniels’ irrational rants against Trump and Trump supporters revolve around charges of racism. Apparently memorizing lines from To Kill a Mockingbird makes an actor an expert on race relations in America, or something.
Jeff Daniels plays the role of Comey in the miniseries. The scheduling of the miniseries must be a huge disappointment for both Daniels and Comey. Think of all the joint appearances they could make in interviews to publicize the miniseries and rant against Trump to late-night show hosts and other liberal-friendly outlets like The View. I bet Chris Wallace or Dana Perino would be happy for the two to be booked on their shows if the pair expanded their horizons enough to appear on Fox News Channel. Speculation is that President Trump used his “long mutual admiration” with CBS Viacom chief Shari Redstone. (CBS Studios made the series, adapted for the screen.) This speculation is especially timely, given Trump’s habit of throwing up blockades against authors he thinks are unfairly portraying him – case in point this week is the lawsuit against John Bolton revolving around the release of his new memoir. He’s a fighter.
Brendan Gleeson plays President Trump. He is an award-winning Irish actor and film director. I admit I had to look him up because the name wasn’t registering with me. He played Alastor Moody in the Harry Potter films, and he had supporting roles in Braveheart, Michael Collins, Gangs of New York, and Cold Mountain, among others. According to Showtime, the miniseries isn’t a biopic. Instead, it focuses on the story of the relationship between Trump and Comey.
According to Showtime, the series is an immersive, behind-the-headlines account of the historically turbulent events surrounding the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath, which divided a nation. It’s not a biopic, but is instead the story of two powerful figures, Comey and Trump, whose strikingly different personalities, ethics and loyalties put them on a collision course. It’s described as an insider’s journey down the corridors of power, where decision-makers struggle to apply old norms to a dramatic new paradigm in the face of Russia’s deep and unprecedented penetration into American politics, with our nation’s rule of law hanging in the balance. Each character’s actions in these historic months made the careers of some, destroyed the careers of others and helped shape the incendiary political landscape we live in today. Part one of the series examines the earliest days of the Russia investigation, the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and their impact on Election Night 2016, when Donald Trump stunned the world and was elected president. Part two is a virtual day-by-day account of the tempestuous relationship between Comey and Trump and the intense and chaotic first months of the Trump presidency – where allies became enemies, enemies became friends and truth depended on what side you were on.
James Comey continues to cash in on his taxpayer-supported career in government service. His vendetta against Trump will likely continue if Trump wins re-election. I can just see the soulful tweets from Comey’s Twitter account now, filled with fuzzy deep thoughts. Trump’s re-election will be worth it, besides the fact that voters must spar us from four years of Joe Biden, to see more epic meltdowns on Election Night 2020 from our intellectual betters in the entertainment industry.


hotair--2020-06-18--Nuclear: DOJ seeks emergency order to block publication of Bolton's book

It ’ s impossible for me to believe that the Justice Department , even a Justice Department led by Bill Barr , would deem this futile effort worthy of its time .
It has to be that Trump was dissatisfied with the more modest complaint filed against Bolton by the DOJ a few days ago and put political pressure on them to go nuclear by seeking to block publication of Bolton ’ s book altogether .
Which would prove Bolton ’ s argument , ironically , that the president consistently places his own personal interests above civic norms and obligations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the country ’ s cultural and institutional antipathy to prior restraint .
The complaint filed by the DOJ a few days ago claimed that the White House knew by June 7 that Bolton and Simon & Schuster were planning to publish his book on June 23 .
Why didn ’ t they seek a TRO immediately instead of waiting until six days before the publication date ?
The media is already reporting on the contents of the book this week ; the WSJ published a lengthy excerpt from it yesterday , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting in warehouses , ready to be delivered next Tuesday .
It ’ s awfully late in the day for this .
Another question : If the plan here was always to block publication of the book , why didn ’ t the DOJ name Simon & Schuster a defendant in the complaint they filed against Bolton a few days ago ?
That seemed to be a concession by the Department that they hadn ’ t a prayer of stopping it from being released , only of potentially seizing Bolton ’ s profits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the TRO would never be granted and didn ’ t consider filing one until it had its arm twisted by the president at the last minute to fight Bolton with all weapons at its disposal .
I ’ m just speculating , but that speculation is more plausible than Bill Barr thinking the federal judiciary is going to allow government censorship of a presidential critic in an election year by endorsing prior restraint .
On Wednesday night , prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District for a hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restraining order and preliminary injunction against Bolton , “ seeking to enjoin publication of a book containing classified information.
” The government argued that if the court enjoins Bolton , then its order should also bind his publisher , Simon & Schuster .
In a 37-page filing Wednesday , the Justice Department wrote , “ Disclosure of the manuscript will damage the national security of the United States , ” adding , “ To be clear : Defendant ’ s manuscript still contains classified information , as confirmed by some of the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials.
” The filing included declarations by four U.S. officials , including Michael Ellis , the National Security Council ’ s new senior director for intelligence , who held up approval of Bolton ’ s manuscript .
Ellis said that passages of the manuscript “ reasonably could be expected to cause damage , serious damage , or exceptionally grave damage to the United States , ” and provided six examples for the judge ’ s private review .
It ’ s interesting that natsec personnel are offering the judge concrete examples of information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposedly be too dangerous for the world to know but it ’ d have to be earthshaking stuff to justify blocking publication — and remember that the book has already been through one round of vetting with an officer at the National Security Council , who presumably would have caught any truly egregious material on the first pass-through .
Even worse for the DOJ , the judge they drew in this case , Royce Lamberth , has been publicly critical in the past of excessive judicial deference to the executive branch on matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to show deference in this case , when there ’ s an obvious political/electoral motive for the White House to slow-walk review of Bolton ’ s book , and when the DOJ is seeking to censor Bolton ’ s book , is asking an awful lot .
The president , who is very Not Mad about all this , isn ’ t helping his lawyers ’ case either with his tweeting .
But that ’ s par for the course .
The last thing you want if you ’ re a DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in court that there ’ s no political vendetta involved in blocking Bolton ’ s book is to have the president badmouthing the guy endlessly on social media .
Trump ’ s claims that the book is full of lies also undermines the Department ’ s case , ironically : If all the revelations in the book about Trump are lies then there ’ s no leak problem and the book can go forward .
Trump ’ s remedy in that case is to sue Bolton for defamation .
If , on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be censored — and Bolton potentially charged with a crime for leaking — because he shared classified information then the information in it has to be true .
It ’ d be an amusing turn in this episode if the DOJ had to specify which claims about Trump are true but classified and which are lies but okay to publish .
You may remember from this post that attorney Mark Zaid , an expert in classification law , thinks the DOJ has a rock-solid case against Bolton on the breach-of-contract claim .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s manuscript for classified information ; they never formally informed him that that process was complete before he and Simon & Schuster decided to publish .
He thus broke his agreement with them .
Case closed .
If Bolton thought the White House was slow-walking the review process in hopes of pushing off publication of his book until after the election then he should have sued and made that claim instead of rushing to publish .
( And for what it ’ s worth , Zaid says he ’ s had clients for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer than the five months Bolton was subjected to .
So much for the theory that they were slow-walking him . )
But seeking to seize Bolton ’ s profits from the book after it ’ s been published is a very different legal animal from asking a court to block publication of the book altogether .
Zaid is aghast that the DOJ would attempt to do that : Courts detest government censorship as a core First Amendment violation .
The normal course of action , and what I assume will happen here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be allowed to come out and then the DOJ can decide if it wants to file criminal charges against him .
Barr and the entire DOJ team know it .
So how ’ d they end up seeking an almost sure-loser TRO ?
Either something classified slipped through the first round of NSC vetting of Bolton ’ s manuscript that ’ s so explosive that the judiciary ’ s about to throw free-speech precedent out the window to bottle it up or the DOJ is so eager to show Trump that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to harass Bolton that it ’ s willing to give censorship the ol ’ college try in court .
And if they ’ re willing to do that , they ’ ll almost certainly have to pursue him criminally once the current matter has proven .
POTUS would be so disappointed if they didn ’ t .
Here ’ s Bolton telling ABC News in an interview set to air in full on Sunday that Trump ’ s incompetent and unfit for office .
Is the court going to censor that interview too @

It’s impossible for me to believe that the Justice Department, even a Justice Department led by Bill Barr, would deem this futile effort worthy of its time. It has to be that Trump was dissatisfied with the more modest complaint filed against Bolton by the DOJ a few days ago and put political pressure on them to go nuclear by seeking to block publication of Bolton’s book altogether.
Which would prove Bolton’s argument, ironically, that the president consistently places his own personal interests above civic norms and obligations. Such as, in this case, the country’s cultural and institutional antipathy to prior restraint.
The complaint filed by the DOJ a few days ago claimed that the White House knew by June 7 that Bolton and Simon & Schuster were planning to publish his book on June 23. Why didn’t they seek a TRO immediately instead of waiting until six days before the publication date? The media is already reporting on the contents of the book this week; the WSJ published a lengthy excerpt from it yesterday, for cripes sake. Thousands of copies are sitting in warehouses, ready to be delivered next Tuesday. It’s awfully late in the day for this.
Another question: If the plan here was always to block publication of the book, why didn’t the DOJ name Simon & Schuster a defendant in the complaint they filed against Bolton a few days ago? That seemed to be a concession by the Department that they hadn’t a prayer of stopping it from being released, only of potentially seizing Bolton’s profits from it.
Maybe the Department knew that the TRO would never be granted and didn’t consider filing one until it had its arm twisted by the president at the last minute to fight Bolton with all weapons at its disposal. I’m just speculating, but that speculation is more plausible than Bill Barr thinking the federal judiciary is going to allow government censorship of a presidential critic in an election year by endorsing prior restraint.
On Wednesday night, prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District for a hearing Friday on the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Bolton, “seeking to enjoin publication of a book containing classified information.” The government argued that if the court enjoins Bolton, then its order should also bind his publisher, Simon & Schuster. In a 37-page filing Wednesday, the Justice Department wrote, “Disclosure of the manuscript will damage the national security of the United States,” adding, “To be clear: Defendant’s manuscript still contains classified information, as confirmed by some of the Government’s most senior national-security and intelligence officials.” The filing included declarations by four U.S. officials, including Michael Ellis, the National Security Council’s new senior director for intelligence, who held up approval of Bolton’s manuscript. Ellis said that passages of the manuscript “reasonably could be expected to cause damage, serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage to the United States,” and provided six examples for the judge’s private review.
It’s interesting that natsec personnel are offering the judge concrete examples of information from Bolton’s book that would supposedly be too dangerous for the world to know but it’d have to be earthshaking stuff to justify blocking publication — and remember that the book has already been through one round of vetting with an officer at the National Security Council, who presumably would have caught any truly egregious material on the first pass-through. Even worse for the DOJ, the judge they drew in this case, Royce Lamberth, has been publicly critical in the past of excessive judicial deference to the executive branch on matters of classification. Asking him of all people to show deference in this case, when there’s an obvious political/electoral motive for the White House to slow-walk review of Bolton’s book, and when the DOJ is seeking to censor Bolton’s book, is asking an awful lot.
The president, who is very Not Mad about all this, isn’t helping his lawyers’ case either with his tweeting. But that’s par for the course.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273468029712707584
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273603410340843520
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273620783131250690
The last thing you want if you’re a DOJ lawyer who’s about to argue in court that there’s no political vendetta involved in blocking Bolton’s book is to have the president badmouthing the guy endlessly on social media. Trump’s claims that the book is full of lies also undermines the Department’s case, ironically:
https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/1273392725937790979
If all the revelations in the book about Trump are lies then there’s no leak problem and the book can go forward. Trump’s remedy in that case is to sue Bolton for defamation. If, on the other hand, the book needs to be censored — and Bolton potentially charged with a crime for leaking — because he shared classified information then the information in it has to be true. It’d be an amusing turn in this episode if the DOJ had to specify which claims about Trump are true but classified and which are lies but okay to publish.
You may remember from this post that attorney Mark Zaid, an expert in classification law, thinks the DOJ has a rock-solid case against Bolton on the breach-of-contract claim. The White House undertook to review Bolton’s manuscript for classified information; they never formally informed him that that process was complete before he and Simon & Schuster decided to publish. He thus broke his agreement with them. Case closed. If Bolton thought the White House was slow-walking the review process in hopes of pushing off publication of his book until after the election then he should have sued and made that claim instead of rushing to publish. (And for what it’s worth, Zaid says he’s had clients for whom the review process went on waaaaaay longer than the five months Bolton was subjected to. So much for the theory that they were slow-walking him.) But seeking to seize Bolton’s profits from the book after it’s been published is a very different legal animal from asking a court to block publication of the book altogether. Zaid is aghast that the DOJ would attempt to do that:
3) I can think of only one prior successful injunction. In 1979, in US v. Progressive, govt initially blocked art detailing how to build hydrogen bomb. In granting injunction, Judge basically said 1st Amendment of no use if everyone dead. Turned out, info was already available. — Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) June 18, 2020
5)Even though Pentagon Papers case was litigated in about two weeks time from start to finish, 1971 is not 2020. I would be shocked this Motion would be decided, much less even briefed, in time to stop publication on Tues. That’s just not how book distribution system works. — Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) June 18, 2020
Courts detest government censorship as a core First Amendment violation. The normal course of action, and what I assume will happen here, is that Bolton’s book will be allowed to come out and then the DOJ can decide if it wants to file criminal charges against him. Barr and the entire DOJ team know it. So how’d they end up seeking an almost sure-loser TRO? Either something classified slipped through the first round of NSC vetting of Bolton’s manuscript that’s so explosive that the judiciary’s about to throw free-speech precedent out the window to bottle it up or the DOJ is so eager to show Trump that it’s doing everything in its power to harass Bolton that it’s willing to give censorship the ol’ college try in court.
And if they’re willing to do that, they’ll almost certainly have to pursue him criminally once the current matter has proven. POTUS would be so disappointed if they didn’t.
Here’s Bolton telling ABC News in an interview set to air in full on Sunday that Trump’s incompetent and unfit for office. Is the court going to censor that interview too?