On this week’s ‘Not My Job’ segment of the NPR quiz show Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, the guest is Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And – yes, really! It will not shock you that his conversation with host Peter Sagal is not remotely substantive, but is a lot of fun. Like when he says dealing with his 3 and 4-year old kids are a good preparation for the rest of his days. And politely handles questions about the previous administration.
This the full Wait, Wait… broadcast, but you can jump directly to the “Not My Job” segment, it starts around the 18:15 mark.
0 Comments
Today's Jon Stewart's podcast is, as they put it, “A Nuanced Conversation About COVID Vaccines (Yes, Really!)" As Jon says, “We’re back and we’re coming in hot with a conversation about COVID vaccines! We’re joined by Dr. Gregory A. Poland (Director of Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group), Dr. Saad Omer (Director of the Yale Institute for Global Health), and Zeynep Tufekci (Professor at Columbia University) who bring something that’s often lacking from these conversations: nuance. We talk through why many non-crazy people are hesitant to get vaccinated, how our public health institutions have failed to communicate effectively with the masses, and why it should be perfectly okay to ask questions about the risks and benefits of any vaccine.“ Happily, although a podcast, the show now seems to be posting an audio Zoom version of the episode, so that's what we'll go with. And you can watch it here. From the archives. This week, the contest is Jason Carr from Philadelphia. In the early stages, I could hear the theme, but couldn't make out the hidden song -- but not long after it became quite clear to me. The composer style is obviously from a distinct period, though it's a period I always have a toss-up because about three or four people. And my toss-up guess was wrong.
This week, Al and his staff take the holiday off and offer a repeat of a half-hour comedy sketch he first presented in 2020, but buried in a separate show. It’s a fable, “The Day the President Laughed!” The Trump kids offer a prize to whoever can make their father laugh. Al opens with a few comments, followed by a couple promotional ads, so don’t think those are part of the sketch.
The other day, I posted a video of Peter, Paul and Mary at the Newport Folks Festival from 1963-65. This comes from the festival right in the middle of those years – a 1964 performance of the song “Mr. Tambourine Man’ by a young Bob Dylan whose career had just begun to skyrocket. And all the better, he’s introduced here by Pete Seeger. Yesterday, the Supreme Court released the results of their investigation into the leak of the early draft of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The resultant public reaction grew so great that Chief Justice John Roberts claimed there were death threats. And for all that, the results of the investigation are pretty much “We don’t know.”
It won’t come as a shock to know that I have no idea how in-depth the investigation was, nor what they found. All I have are observation and guesses. And it strikes me that if the issue is no intense that you claim there are assassination attempts, you wouldn’t want to close down an investigation before you found out who leaked the draft. And if you couldn’t find out who leaked it, you’d want to turn the investigation over to an organization that does actual investigations as part of its job, like, say the FBI – rather than just handling it in-house. Further, as Nicolle Wallace noted on her MSNBC show, she had a situation when she worked at the W. Bush White House where she was put in charge of tracking down a leak, “And I found it in 12 hours.” That doesn’t mean, of course, that all such leaks can be tracked down like that, but the Supreme Court leak was pretty contained, and there were only about 80 people who could have possibly been involved. And for all her skills, Nicolle Wallace was a career P.R. rep. As former FBI agent Frank Figliuzzi commented, “This investigation was conducted by someone called the Marshal of the Supreme Court. I'm sure she's a wonderful person, but she has no law enforcement training or experience. She's in charge of securing the building called the Supreme Court building and the justices. that's what she does. That's who they gave this to in this most egregious breach of security in the history of the Supreme Court." For all that, my feeling – and again, it’s nothing more than that, though based on all the above – is that I agree with former RNC chairman Michael Steele who said (and I paraphrase his words) who said, “Of course, they know or have an idea who leaked the material, how he did it and what equipment he used – and may even know who did it!!!” And, as Steele also noted, it may even be a Justice. And they’re not investigating any further and not releasing what information they have because it would be embarrassing to the Court and perhaps even damaging. Which, given this particular Court, likely means it was someone on the right wing who wanted to lock in the decision once the draft became public. Could it have been someone on the left? If we're going with the premise (as we are) that the Court has a good idea or knows who leaked, then a liberal leak wouldn’t have been nearly as embarrassing or damaging to this Court which has a heavy conservative bent. If a liberal leaked the draft, yes, that would have been just as problematic about Court security, but as an embarrassment, conservatives would have been able to use the charge to slam "The Libs." So, it seems very unlikely that if the Court investigation has an idea where the leak came from or even knows, and it was a source from the left, I think conservatives would have happily reported that and jumped on it. Add to this that the Supreme Court right now has an historically-low approval rating, around a disastrous 25%. The public doesn't trust the current Court for making decisions without politics involved. So, if it was a conservative who played politics and leaked the Dobbs draft in order to lock in the right-wing decision, that would be a profound reason, most especially when you're treading water with a 25% approval, for the conservative majority on the bench to want to protect its own and make sure the investigation ended without resolution. After all, protecting your liberal opponents across the aisle is not a normal action. Not when you can cry out, "See! They're the ones making this all political!" To be clear, I have no idea if this is what has happened. Maybe they truly don’t know. But if so, it comes around back to the question – if this was so serious (as it is) and reached the dangerous level of assassination threats (as the Chief Justice claims, then why on earth would you stop the investigation and why wouldn’t you turn it over to the FBI? As Nicolle Wallace said on her show, “I don’t know, something just doesn’t seem right about this.” Because something doesn’t seem right about this. And what didn’t seem right to former FBI agent Figliuzzi is that it seems like this was an investigation they didn’t want to know the result. “When is an investigation really not an investigation?” he asked. “When you're told what you can and can't do. You can't do what you need to do or talk to the people you need to talk to solve the investigation and whether it's conducted by professional investigators.” Figliuzzi noted that they may have talked to 100 people, but there were many people didn’t talk to – like many clerks and people who could have done the leaking but left the court to go onto some other legal job outside the Court. They also didn’t talk under sworn oath (unlike all others) to any of the Supreme Court Justices – who are actually the bosses of the Marshal of the Supreme Court and control her salary and job. And they also didn't call the FBI. “Because you know what would happen?” Figliuzzi added about if the FBI had been brought in. “A real case would have happened. They would have actually had the criminal process. Someone stole government property. Someone mishandled government records, potentially a crime. They could have had subpoenas of former clerks and former employees, they would have had that leverage over them. They could have subpoenaed phone carriers and internet providers and they could have seen who was talking to whom and when at the media platform that obtained this information. All that could have been done." But it wasn’t done. None of that. All the more odd since Justice Samuel Alito (who wasn't questioned) has a history of having been under heavy suspicion for previously leaking the controversial, conservative Hobby Lobby decision. And since Justice Justice Clarence (who wasn't questioned) has a wife (who wasn't questioned who is widely known for her involvement with far-right groups. But no, none of them were questioned under oath. Which is why, if I had to guess (and writing a column every day, I think it’s an obligation…) – they have an idea who leaked the material, how he did it and what equipment he used – and may even know who did it. And I think it was probably someone on the right wing who wanted to lock in the decision to overturned a Constitution right for women to get abortions. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|