"Stanford’s top disinformation research group collapses under pressure/The Stanford Internet Observatory provided real-time analysis..."

"... on viral election falsehoods but has struggled amid attacks from conservative politicians and activists." 

That's the headline at WaPo, and I'm wondering how the 2 parts of the headline relate to each other. Why did the Stanford Internet Observatory collapse? Was it because conservatives attacked it? How much of a struggle is it for a research group that specializes in monitoring disinformation to handle attacks? The word "amid" fudges the causal connection. Did X happen because of Y or did X and Y just happen around the same time?

The word "amid" also appears in the first sentence: "The Stanford Internet Observatory... has shed most of its staff and may shut down amid political and legal attacks that have cast a pall on efforts to study online misinformation."

"Amid" appears again in the 4th paragraph: "Students and scholars affiliated with the program say they have been worn down by online attacks and harassment amid the heated political climate for misinformation research, as legislators threaten to cut federal funding to universities studying propaganda."

Have I ever gone on "amid" alert before? Yes! In October 2013, there was a NYT headline, "Obama’s Uncertain Path Amid Syria Bloodshed." 

"Amid the impasse, [Kevin] McCarthy is floating a plan that would reinstall him as speaker and make Jordan, a conservative Trump ally, the assistant speaker..."

"... according to three sources familiar with McCarthy’s pitch. Asked why the idea — which lacks key details, like how it would be enacted and whether it could even gain enough traction to happen — was being floated now, a GOP lawmaker replied: 'We’re desperate.'... A source briefed on the idea likened it to the Speaker Nancy Pelosi/Assistant Speaker Katherine Clark arrangement that the Democrats had. 'Kevin speaker, Jordan assistant speaker,' the source said. Two GOP lawmakers described McCarthy as having melted down in conference meetings [Tuesday] because, they said, he is losing his ability to handpick a new speaker...."

NBC News reports.

"House Republicans on Friday nominated Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the hard-right chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to be their next speaker..."

"... but quickly postponed a floor vote to elect him as scores of their members refused to commit to backing him.... After a week of turmoil and disarray, Republicans sent their members home for the weekend late Friday afternoon with no resolution and no sense of when the feuding might end...."

The NYT reports.

"Congressman Jim Jordan... will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!"

Writes Donald Trump at Truth Social.

In case you were getting excited about the wafted possibility that Trump himself would become Speaker of the House. Why he could bring his storied deal-making powers to the woeful institution!

Full text of the "truth," which I'm inclined to quote because it has a reference to the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

"Rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation and obstruction."

Said Alvin Bragg, quoted in "Bragg Sues Jim Jordan in Move to Block Interference in Trump Case/Mr. Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, had subpoenaed a former prosecutor who worked on the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald J. Trump" (NYT).

Why not allow the congressional proceedings to proceed in the ordinary course? Why not allow the 2024 presidential campaign to proceed in its ordinary course? 

Whose "ordinary course" has the right of way in this busy intersection? 

A federal judge might decide. (Bragg is asking a federal judge to decide to give the Manhattan D.A. priority over the House Judiciary Committee.) But is that in the ordinary course of federal court jurisdiction? 

"A divided House voted on Tuesday to launch a wide-ranging investigation into federal law enforcement and national security agencies..."

"... as Republicans promised to use their new power in Congress to scrutinize what they said was a concerted effort by the government to silence and punish conservatives at all levels, from protesters at school board meetings to former President Donald J. Trump. On a party-line vote of 221-211 with all Democrats opposed, the House approved the formation of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which is to be chaired by Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a staunch ally of Mr. Trump.... In a floor speech, Mr. Jordan... said his interest was merely in 'protecting the First Amendment' at a time when he said the right was being unfairly targeted.... 'We don’t want to go after anyone,' he said. 'We just want it to stop.'"

The NYT reports.

"Matt Gaetz rises to nominate Jim Jordan, who just urged his colleagues to vote for Kevin McCarthy."

"Gaetz says Jordan’s speech nominating McCarthy displayed 'more vision than we have ever heard from the alternative.'"

Reports Catie Edmondson at the NYT.

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned the GOP on Wednesday by vetoing two of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's choices for a select panel investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack..."

"... a move all but guaranteed to spark a Republican boycott of the probe. Pelosi rejected Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who was tapped to serve as ranking member, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), both of whom voted to challenge certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral wins earlier this year. Her decision sent shock waves through the House and is likely to galvanize House Republicans against any participation in the investigation.... McCarthy issued a scorching reply that made clear he would yank his other three picks if the speaker didn't walk back her veto of Banks and Jordan, a move she's highly unlikely to make."

Politico reports.

Did Donald Trump just say that he will run for President in 2024?

"[A] Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House. And I wonder who that will be? I wonder who that will be? Who, who, who will that be? I wonder."

Said Donald Trump, near the end of his CPAC speech yesterday (transcript). 

There's coy cuteness in the repeated "wonder" and the repeated "who": "And I wonder who that will be? I wonder who that will be? Who, who, who will that be? I wonder." It's like the old doowop song:I wonder wonder who who who who...

It's clearly a humorous locution. Check it out:

  

The "who" has got to refer to himself, don't you think? There's also the idea of making "a triumphant return to the White House." He's the only one who's been there before and can return, though it could be denied by saying it only means that Republicans have been there before and the Party can return one of its own to the place. 

Rewatching the clip, I think he's saying "who... who," pausing, and saying "who, who, who," because he wants the crowd to chant "You! You! You!" There might be some of that in the crowd noise, but I don't think it's distinct enough to meet his expectations. 

He proceeds to the last couple sentences of his remarks:

Standing before you today, I am supremely confident that for our movement, for our party, and for our country, our brightest days are just ahead. And that together we will make America prouder, freer, stronger and greater than it ever has been before.

Should we interpret to mean that he will run again? I think he's obviously teasing the idea. He gets something he wants simply by teasing a run, and why shouldn't he play that part while it's new and interesting? 

He may be looking to pass his politics on to someone new. When I listened to the speech live, I was struck that he singled out Jim Jordan — out of all the CPAC speakers. He said: 

I heard Jim Jordan did a great job.... oh, there he is... Hi Jim. I heard you were great. In fact, I hated to follow you. I want to follow other people. I could name them too. I like to follow other people. I heard you were great. 

He highlighted Jordan and diminished everyone else. But this morning, I'm looking at the transcript, and I see that's just an intro to something I've heard before. Jordan was "a great wrestler," a "college champion," who "likes to win." And that's a set up for how much Trump likes to win and how much Trump has won:

In last year’s congressional primaries, 120, listen to this, it’s crazy. 120 of 122 candidates I endorsed won, 120. That’s almost as good as Jim’s wrestling record. And the two that lost were beaten by people claiming to be more Trump than their opponent. So I like those two people very much also. In the Senate, I was undefeated in endorsements with a record of 21 and 0....

So I don't think he was passing the torch to Jim Jordan. Maybe some day he will, but I think he wants the excitement and influence of seeming to run and of having a torch to pass if he decides not to run. Singling out Jim Jordan — to the extent that it was anything more than a rhetorical device to ease into the topic of winning — is a way to put all the would-be Republican candidates on notice that he has a power to name his successor and he's going to make a big show of exercising that power. 

And his endorsements are huge — I was undefeated in endorsements.