Watching WaPo

The Washington Post was the newspaper at the center of taking down Richard Nixon. In case you haven't been paying attention, they may be responsible for taking down another president. I have made a habit lately of checking the Washington Post's website at 4:30 p.m. every afternoon. There have been several 4:30 p.m. bombshells in the last few months by the Washington Post, the most recent one this week: Robert Mueller's team is investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice. If you want the fairest, best coverage of what's going on in Washington, read the Post's reporting.

But why does this tend to happen? Why does it happen that these stories come out at roughly 4 p.m. Central time, and how do they decide what to run? Luckily, I had the opportunity to job shadow at the Washington Post back in the summer of 2005. I won a scholarship through OU, and my student media director opted to send me to Washington to job shadow a series of OU alumni in D.C. instead of using those funds to attend a conference. It was a fun five days.

Anyway, first is the issue of timing: 4 p.m. Central time = 5 p.m. Eastern time. They're trying to get the biggest news of the day out by the end of the traditional work day so that they can get out early editions of the paper (for hotels and outlying areas) or so that their reporting is picked up in time by other news media (evening television and radio broadcast news, mostly). The big news of the day must be properly and heavily edited, so it's probably one of the earliest things completed, so that there's more time to comb through the details.

But the other issue is how the paper decides what to print. This meeting is called the "budget" meeting, and almost every paper I've ever been in has had one, though my paper held it once a week because of our size. I was honored to be able to sit in on one of the Washington Post's budget meetings when I job shadowed there. Note: I said "one of" -- the Washington Post has more than one a day. If I remember correctly, the first wasn't as important and is mostly the lower-level editors talking about what they're working on. The other one (which I attended) was later in the day, like 3:30 p.m. or so. That's the one where the editor-in-chief attends, and each department brings their best stories to the table. Everyone in the room gets a printout of all the stories that are in the pipeline (I think it was 3-4 pages long, front and back), and each departmental editor shares their most important or best stories. Sometimes they'll say something like "We'll need another day to finish that story, so we'll use X story instead." But after every department's had its say, the editors discuss which story/stories would be on the front page and their placement. The best/most important/most newsworthy stories get "top of the fold" billing for maximum exposure on the stands. Sometimes they'll determine placement on the web or timing, too.

Not every day means breaking incredible political news or making presidents sweat. The day I was there, it was August and then-President Bush was on vacation (or getting ready for vacation) at his ranch in Texas. The centerpiece photo of the paper that day was from Washington Redskins training camp of a rookie quarterback tossing the ball in the air.

Sessions with Sessions

I didn't expect much from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony on Tuesday. Perhaps it's because he was such a partisan for Trump. Perhaps it's because I've long seen him talk his way into odd positions when he was a senator. Perhaps it's because I expect any AG to be smart enough not to put themselves in a bad situation when being questioned. Of CNN's 6 questions for Sessions, it was easy to see Sessions getting through the day with few surprises.

I was not surprised. There were a few testy moments, but it was largely exactly what I said last week about grandstanding, just with the roles reversed. This time, most Democrats were trying to sound tough against Sessions, but largely spent their time pontificating rather than asking yes-no questions or tough, probing questions. Many Democrats could have saved their time whining that Sessions was impeding their investigation by not answering questions and simply asked better questions, like Sen. Angus King, I-Maine. The Republicans spent their time talking in circles (read: wasting time) and asking softball questions, like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. All told, Sessions was a good soldier, said plenty to make the GOP happy (Fox News web headline framed Sessions as defending his honor/taking on critics/calling out "lies"), gave away next to nothing of note, and stymied Democrats with non-answers. I can see the GOP rallying around Sessions' testimony while Democrats complain that he wasn't being helpful. This was not the bombshell that the Comey testimony was.

That's not to say there weren't some confusing moments:
• Sessions kept saying that he wouldn't answer some questions because of private conversations with the president (which are protected as executive privilege) while noting that he was not actually invoking executive privilege. He was doing it to protect the President's right to use it if he wants. But he went in and out on that, as Sen. King noted. But more importantly, it's preposterous -- it's like saying "I'm not pleading the Fifth, but I'm refusing to answer in case I want to plead the Fifth later, even though I'm testifying under oath right now." It was a weird answer that Democrats are rightfully hitting him on.
• Sessions says that Trump asked him and Deputy AG Rosenstein for a recommendation on Comey, but Trump did not share his plans to fire Comey regardless. This is also weird, but Sessions blames Comey's investigation of Hillary Clinton for his firing. But at the time of the Hillary Clinton investigation, Sessions had nothing but praise for his handling of the case. It doesn't add up.
• Further on that point, Sessions said he was stunned that Comey announced the results of the Clinton investigation, superseding then-AG Loretta Lynch, and that was part of his reasoning for Comey's firing. But Lynch had already recused herself from the investigation because of a 10-minute "tarmac meeting" with Bill Clinton. She'd announced by then that whatever decision Comey made, she'd follow through with. So... Comey had the green light there.
• At one point, Sessions said that it wasn't improper of Trump to meet with Comey one-on-one, but it was improper for Comey to share details of that meeting. This sounds like it's making Comey out to be the bad guy, but ignores the context — Comey didn't share those details until Trump, in his firing of Comey, thanked Comey for stating three times that Trump wasn't under investigation. That's Trump sharing the details of the meeting, and Comey trying to clarify/explain it, not Comey being the original leaker.
• Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., (full disclosure: I have a friend who works for him) read a letter that basically admitted to a third meeting between Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but also noted it was at a reception and probably didn't have enough time to have a meaningful conversation. (Quick aside: If Lynch recused herself from the Clinton investigation for a 10-minute "tarmac meeting," then surely 10 minutes at a reception is an established amount of time to have meaningful conversations, right?). Sessions had spent the rest of the testimony denying a third meeting ever took place, but noted he may have just forgotten about one, only for Lankford to say, in effect, that it happened but was no big deal.
• Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., got told to back off when she was pressing Sessions. I thought she was just being prosecutorial like those before and after her, but... whatever. Anyway, while she clearly had no patience for Sessions' folksy nature, she asked one good question that separated this testimony from Comey's. Her question was if Sessions had any written materials he could use to jog his memory. Comey had extensive notes and had very few "I don't recall"s. Sessions repeatedly said he didn't recall and didn't have any notes to fall back on. It spoke to the quality of the Comey testimony versus Sessions'.

On Recent Shootings

I don't want to spend a lot of time on the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise. The response has been appropriate and sensible. Speaker Paul Ryan gave a tremendous speech. The Democrats were praised by Republicans for leading a prayer. Sen. Bernie Sanders gave a good speech denouncing the shooter and denying violence, especially since the shooter was a former Sanders supporter. It was handled the way incidents like this should be handled: with grace, care, unity and sensitivity.

I've seen some bloviators (Franklin Graham comes to mind) on the right blame the rhetoric on the left for the violence. But this is not a left-right thing. It's on both sides. Just a few weeks ago, the opposite case happened: two people were killed by a man in Portland, Ore., for standing up for a Muslim woman. These commentators who blamed the left cited such great liberal thinkers as Kathy Griffin and that one performance of Julius Caesar that implied Trump was Caesar. Those folks don't speak for liberals any more than Ted Nugent speaks for conservatives. The danger is not when entertainers or those without power say and do stupid things. The danger is when candidates themselves call out for violence either from the dais or imply it with their actions. Keep an eye out for that on both sides, and see who is the aggressor.

Summary Judgments

I found it interesting that John McCain is calling Trump's leadership weak compared to Obama's. McCain is not exactly a friend of the man he lost to in 2008, but he seems to be one of the biggest Republican critics of Trump, and also one of its swing votes. In fact, he helped kill an environmental bill a few weeks ago when he went against the party line. Something to watch, perhaps.  •  •  •  I like Sen. Kirsten Gillebrand, D-N.Y. But her curse words in a public setting, as well as a seeming rise in the use of curse words by Democrats, is sending the wrong message. It's an abandonment of the "They go low, we go high" line by Michelle Obama. It cedes a little bit of the moral high ground to the GOP. While it signals a "We are so serious about this, it's worth cursing about" sort of thing, it also doesn't play well with undecided voters and Christians who are wary of Trump.  •  •  •  In all the hubbub about Russia, the Senate passed a bill to codify and deepen sanctions against Russia. McConnell (no friend of Russia) tied it to the Iran sanctions bill — which Trump has touted, so Trump would almost have to sign it. Further, it takes the lifting of those sanctions out of the president's hands if signed. Rather quiet, but solid bipartisan move. Good job, Senate.  •  •  •  Interesting catch by NBC News of all the times Trump said Clinton would be stymied by investigations, but now it's he who is stymied by FBI investigations.  •  •  •  I ran the Dirty Duo 5K on Saturday and didn't feel all that great about my run. I did OK the first half, which was mostly downhill, but then had to walk most of the second-half uphill segments. They were sharp uphills, but I'd rather not walk. I finished in 38:20 and 39th overall. I thought I did terribly. Turns out, my time was 2 minutes faster than last year, and I think they even added an obstacle to the course. So all in all, not bad. Of course, I haven't run yet this week, so... back in the saddle tomorrow.  •  •  •  "Don't get me wet, water!" -- Roland, playing near the sprinkler.