"Do you think Bari Weiss needs to be removed?"/"Oh, gosh, yes. Look, she’s a lovely person. And her Free Press organization that she founded has been very successful. But television’s not her thing."

"This is like somebody walking up to me and saying, 'There’s a 747, there are 400 people on it, we need you to fly it to Paris.' I’m going to decline because I don’t have a clue. And it would have been so much better if Bari Weiss had been offered this job and said, 'Oh, that’s not for me, I don’t know how to do that.'"

That's Scott Pelley, answering a question in "The Interview/Scott Pelley on the Bari Weiss Era and His Last Days at '60 Minutes'" (NYT).

Here's the entire interview (with a transcript at YouTube):

"Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt... a performative display of hostility...."

"Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you."

Said Nick Bilton, "60 Minutes" executive producer, quoted in "Scott Pelley fired from ‘60 Minutes’ after confrontation with new boss/The termination marks the latest shake-up during a tumultuous period for the iconic newsmagazine" (WaPo).

What did Pelley say at that meeting?: "[Bari Weiss is] murdering ‘60 Minutes.... She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that. She has no qualifications for her job.... What qualifies you [Bilton] to be in this position?... You have slender qualifications for this job. The changes that she’s made at the ‘Evening News’ have been catastrophic. So why should we expect that any of this is going to be any better?"

She does not love this place — How important is it that the insiders to a show love it? That could lead you awry. Outsiders were brought in to look at it critically — not through the eyes of love — and perhaps to put journalistic principles above catering to insiders who were enjoying the lovable place they had built and maintained. Maybe those erstwhile outsiders are actually terrible, and they are reshaping the place into something that suits them and ruins it for the longtime insiders. But Bilton is charged with running the place, and Pelley chose to insist on getting fired.

"What we have is Karoline Leavitt's soundbite claiming they are evildoers in America (rapists, murderers, etc.). But isn't there much more to ask in light of the torture that we are revealing?"

"Tom Homan and Stephen Miller don't tend to be shy. I realize we've emailed the DHS spox, but we need to push much harder to get these principals on the record."

Wrote Bari Weiss, in an internal memo justifying her action, noting the failure to "present the administration's argument."

Quoted in "Scoop: Weiss told top '60 Minutes' producers that delayed segment had problems" (Axios).

Also at Axios: "Yanked '60 Minutes' episode aired in Canada." 

It's easy to find the whole segment on line, but I'm not going to link to it.

Here's the NYT article about the controversy: "Turmoil at CBS News After Bari Weiss Pulls a ‘60 Minutes’ Segment/Several veteran correspondents questioned how Ms. Weiss, the new CBS News editor in chief, had handled the segment, after she defended her decision on a call with the newsroom." Excerpt:

Did you watch that McCabe thing on "60 Minutes"?

I did.  I watched it very closely. With some meticulous rewinding and analysis (where McCabe declared Trump "disgusting" and it was hard to understand exactly why (Trump, campaigning, had weaponized a factoid from the Wall Street Journal)).

I thought the "60 Minutes" presentation followed a clever narrative arc, with a beginning that allowed McCabe to inflate himself, a middle that brought in his wife and complicated the story, and an ending that gave us so much reason to doubt his credibility that I said out loud, "This really isn't favorable to McCabe at all."

At first, I thought the reasons to mistrust McCabe should have been presented up front, so we could question his telling of the story as we went along, but in the end, I liked the narrative arc, which I think is typical of "60 Minutes." We're drawn in, and then things are not what they seemed, and we're challenged. Then, suddenly, it's that ticking clock on the screen. That's all you get. Figure it out!

Here's the full interview, with video and transcript. I'll just excerpt the text of the part we rewound and rewatched about 10 times:

But in the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign, The Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined "Clinton Ally Aided FBI Wife." It was about Jill McCabe's funding the year before. The article noted, accurately, that her husband's role in the Clinton email investigation began months after she lost. But candidate Donald Trump seemed to conflate the two.

President Trump at Rally: It was just learned that one of the closest people to Hillary Clinton with long-standing ties to her husband and herself… gave more than $675,000 to the campaign of the spouse, the wife, of the top FBI official who helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's illegal email server.

Scott Pelley: How do you feel when you see that?

Jill McCabe: Sick. Sick to my stomach.

Andrew McCabe: I think sickening is the right word. It's disgusting. To see the candidate for the presidency taking those lies and manipulating them for his own advantage, and then to hear you know, the chants and the boos of thousands of people who are just accepting those lies at face value, it's chilling.

My question was: What lies? And: How did Trump manipulate them? We even paused on the text of the WSJ article so we could read it (the "Clinton Ally" was Terry McAuliffe).

The best I came up with in answer to my question was that Jill McCabe received the $675,000 and lost her election before Andrew McCabe took on a role in the Hillary Clinton investigation, so when Clinton's ally gave the money to Jill, her husband was not yet in the position she had a huge interest having influence over. I don't think Andrew McCabe is saying the WSJ published lies, and the only "lies" I see in what Trump said is giving an impression about the time line.

I think Jill and Andrew are horrified at how effectively Trump weaponized the material. Of course he used it "for his own advantage"! Is that what Andrew McCabe is calling "manipulating"? Why isn't that just being a very effective candidate?

"McCabe Says Justice Officials Discussed Recruiting Cabinet Members to Push Trump Out of Office."

The NYT reports on an interview with Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director. According to McCabe, "top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau’s director, that they discussed whether to recruit cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office."

The interview (with Scott Pelley) is scheduled to run on "60 Minutes" this weekend, and McCabe is promoting a book. My first question is how serious was the discussion. All sorts of things are discussed in passing. Lots of people "discussed" the 25th Amendment in the early days of the Trump presidency, the idea being that Trump was mentally ill.

Mr. McCabe is the first person involved in these meetings who has spoken publicly about them. Mr. Pelley said, “They were counting noses. They were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating ‘This person would be with us, this person would not be,’ and they were counting noses in that effort....This was not perceived to be a joke,” Mr. Pelley added....

Funny that the key quotes come from Pelley, not McCabe.

Trump has tweeted this reaction:

Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax - a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won....

The NYT doesn't elaborate on why anyone could have seriously thought the 25th Amendment applied. Looking back to early 2017 in my archive, I see that a couple writers at The New Yorker were pushing the Trump-is-insane theory of the applicability of the 25th Amendment. On May 8, 2017, I pointed to Evan Osnos. Excerpt:

Hillary Clinton is achingly honest when asked if she's always told the truth.

I don't know why everyone's treating her so roughly, like this WaPo item titled "Hillary Clinton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad answer on whether she’s ever lied." Here's the exchange:

PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, “I will not lie to you.”

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, “I will never lie to you.”

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, “Have I ever?” I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.

"I will never lie to you" is always a lie, isn't it? A President must lie some of the time. A Secretary of State must lie. A compulsive truth-teller would be a disaster. But she can't say that. She uses the word "leveling" in place of "truth-telling," and she shifts to the concept of trying.

In the course of her career, she's had to try to do a lot of things. Telling the truth doesn't always come first. In fact, we need a capable liar who has good judgment about when to lie. Pelley was trying to box her in. If she says "I've never lied," we'll be able to point to that as a lie, because we know she's lied about at least a few things. Pelley's question is oversimplified, but it worked for him. He got a great soundbite. She stumbled horribly, but wasn't that evidence of some honesty?

There's something I like about Newt Gingrich.

He reminds me of a law professor....



Most of the candidates will listen to a question and then answer some question they wish they'd been asked. This is a standard approach to answering questions on television. It's a way to avoid letting the questioner control you, and you create an opportunity to say what you want to say.

That's not what Newt does. He listens to the precise question asked and examines it, then works out, before our eyes, what is wrong with that question and what the real issue is. He has a depth of understanding and flexibility of mind that allows him to do that, he cares about doing that accurately and well, and he has the style to want to perform reasoning for us. I like that. I try to do that all the time in class, and I know how hard it is, what presence of mind and grasp of the material it takes.

For example, in that little clip, the moderator Scott Pelley asks:

As president of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?

Pelley has framed a yes-or-know question, and instead of saying "yes" (or "absolutely" as Mitt Romney just did), Newt says:

Well, he's not a terrorist suspect. He's a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans. 

Newt says that in a puzzled and slightly peeved way that creates drama about whether he might be confused or combative. It puts us on edge. And Pelley is now required to speak again. Newt didn't launch into a lecture. He even ceded some time to Pelley, who says:

Not found guilty by a court, sir. 

Gingrich doles out a dollop of information:

He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president. 

Pelley is now put in the role of the student in a dialogue:

Well, that's extrajudicial. (CROSSTALK)  It's not the rule of law. (APPLAUSE) 

Look at Pelley at this point — 0:32 — he's smiling and glowing, thinking (perhaps) that he's doing well in class, and the audience applauds for him. Gingrich swoops in:

It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law. If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. 

Now, the applause is for Newt. The dramatic moment has happened, and now the professor makes it all very clear with an instant, crisp mini-lecture on the dimensions of the rule of law:

No, let me be -- let me be very clear about this on two levels. There is a huge gap here that, frankly, far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war, and the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.

There's more applause. We hear one of the other candidates say "Well said. Well said." I think it was Mitt — Mitt, who had just been asked the same question. Mitt answered the question clearly and cleanly. ("If there's someone
that's going to join with a group like Al Qaida that declares war on America,
and we're in a war with that entity, then, of course, anyone who is
bearing arms with that entity is fair game for the United States of America.") Credit to Mitt for openly admiring the style and substance of Professor Gingrich.

IN THE COMMENTS: John Althouse Cohen said:

It sounds to me like Perry is the one who said, "Well said, well said."

On another relistening, I agree.